Just a What If. 2016

Dropping Romo in at the last second because of 1 good drive, in a season where Dak had many good drives, seems insane. I get the argument of starting Romo again the second he was healthy for the experience factor, but by the time they were 13-2 and Dak had a 104.9 passer rating at 8.0 yards per attempt, it was fair to ask what more exactly you were going to get by dumping him for Romo but a lot of locker room drama at the worst possible moment.

Now where did I put my flux capacitor?

Arguably the biggest mistake in the JJ era was not letting the very experienced, very intelligent veteran QB take the wheel of a championship potential team when he was ready.

Dak had his typical game against GB in the playoffs. Stretches mid game where he really didn't get it done followed by some great play to help get them back in it. Threw that complete rookie mistake interception and don't forget the mismanagement of clock/timeout/wasted down at the end. Yes, JG probably made call for the rookie QB but the veteran handles that himself in the same situation.

Did anybody really think this rookie QB was going to be the first rook in NFL history to win a SB, especially without a dominating defense?

birdwells1 said:

In Dallas in 2007 and in Green Bay in 2008.

Click to expand...

If it's in Dallas then it wouldn't be in GB would it, which is what I was referring too. Beating GB in GB.

Irvin88_4life said:

If it's in Dallas then it wouldn't be in GB would it, which is what I was referring too. Beating GB in GB.

Click to expand...

You are still 100% wrong (like always), does clawing back that little piece of data bring you that much pleasure? Back under the rock you go...

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200809210gnb.htm

TwoDeep3 said:

I am wanting the opinions of the fans here on this. I know the season is coming, and what if is a stupid game. But I have changed my opinion about a piece of history in 2016 and wish to see if I am alone.

So,

What if:

In the last game against the Eagles in regular season what would the results have been if Jerry stepped in and advised Dak he has a future, but this is Tony's team, win, lose, or draw for the rest of this season.

1. Would the team (players) have accepted that?

2. They were already going to the play-offs. How would they have fared with a healthy Romo dropping dimes on his receivers and Zeke tearing the league a new rear end?

I was in favor of keeping Dak under center. You don't break a streak.

But upon reflection, I can't help thinking, Tony, knowing this was his swan song, and his ability to recognize the defenses and exploit them, he would have gotten the team - past those butt ugly Packers - to the NFC Championship game and taken the Cowboys to the Super Bowl.

I just see this moment in time, where the stars aligned, and Jones and The Red Headed cheerleader made the wrong move.

I think Tony would have handed the Patriots their butt in the first half, and then dissected them in the second to win it all.

Opinions?

Click to expand...

Romo injured 1st game back and out for all remaining games...

Vtwin said:

Arguably the biggest mistake in the JJ era was not letting the very experienced, very intelligent veteran QB take the wheel of a championship potential team when he was ready.

Dak had his typical game against GB in the playoffs. Stretches mid game where he really didn't get it done followed by some great play to help get them back in it. Threw that complete rookie mistake interception and don't forget the mismanagement of clock/timeout/wasted down at the end. Yes, JG probably made call for the rookie QB but the veteran handles that himself in the same situation.

Did anybody really think this rookie QB was going to be the first rook in NFL history to win a SB, especially without a dominating defense?

Click to expand...

Misleading comment on rookie QBs. Generally 2-3 teams per season, or less, even have a rookie QB, and most of the time they do is because the overall team sucked enough to have a high draft pick. In addition, for much of the first half of the Super Bowl era the thinking around the NFL was that QBs had to sit and learn a few years before even getting a chance to start. In short, while a veteran QB usually would be better prepared to win, it’s not as if Rookies have had even remotely the same opportunity and failed

Dak played well enough to win the Packers game despite the pitiful int.

Romo would have played well enough to win that game and the Falcons as well.

He deserved the opportunity, Dak deserved the opportunity as well.

In hindsight, they made the wrong choice as Dak's play deteriorated in 2017 anyway which was my only concern with making the switch (the mental aspect of how it would effect Dak in the future)

OmerV said:

Misleading comment on rookie QBs. Generally 2-3 teams per season, or less, even have a rookie QB, and most of the time they do is because the overall team sucked enough to have a high draft pick. In addition, for much of the first half of the Super Bowl era the thinking around the NFL was that QBs had to sit and learn a few years before even getting a chance to start.

Click to expand...

I don't understand the point you're making.

I understand what you say about rookies in general but not how it relates to the fact that no rook has ever gone that far. This was a regular talking point during that season as it progessed and the Cowboys piled up the wins.

In hindsight it likely would have been beneficial for Dak to sit and watch the veteran. Would probably be ahead of where he is now when it comes to reading defenses.

TwoDeep3 said:

I am wanting the opinions of the fans here on this. I know the season is coming, and what if is a stupid game. But I have changed my opinion about a piece of history in 2016 and wish to see if I am alone.

So,

What if:

In the last game against the Eagles in regular season what would the results have been if Jerry stepped in and advised Dak he has a future, but this is Tony's team, win, lose, or draw for the rest of this season.

1. Would the team (players) have accepted that?

2. They were already going to the play-offs. How would they have fared with a healthy Romo dropping dimes on his receivers and Zeke tearing the league a new rear end?

I was in favor of keeping Dak under center. You don't break a streak.

But upon reflection, I can't help thinking, Tony, knowing this was his swan song, and his ability to recognize the defenses and exploit them, he would have gotten the team - past those butt ugly Packers - to the NFC Championship game and taken the Cowboys to the Super Bowl.

I just see this moment in time, where the stars aligned, and Jones and The Red Headed cheerleader made the wrong move.

I think Tony would have handed the Patriots their butt in the first half, and then dissected them in the second to win it all.

Opinions?

Click to expand...

Dak had 300 yards and 3 TDs. The Packers scored 34 points. As has often been the case for the Cowboys in the playoffs this century, defense let them down.

No Cowboys QB has ever won a playoff game when the opponent scored 30 or more points - not Meredith, not Staubach, not Aikman, not Romo, not Dak.

The odds of this fairy tale coming true were very slim, but I especially liked the part about Romo handing the Patriots their butts and dissecting them.

No doubt in my mind that Romo gets hurt again if he came back.

I thought a change should have been made toward the end of that season. The league had caught up with Dak, and the passing game was drying up. Good defenses were giving him fits. However, a mostly easy schedule allowed Dallas to keep the ship upright.

It wouldn't have hurt Dak's development at all. In fact, I think it could have GREATLY helped him to sponge off Romo for a bit. A little sideline observation of a good veteran quarterback is beneficial.

And if Romo got hurt, Dak is warmed and ready. There was no downside.

Dallas would have rolled through that awful Green Bay defense with ease from the start of that game, and would have been much better suited to try and score with the high-flying Falcons the next week.

Jake said:

Dak had 300 yards and 3 TDs. The Packers scored 34 points. As has often been the case for the Cowboys in the playoffs this century, defense let them down.

Click to expand...

Atlanta had that in basically the first quarter the following week. That Packer defense was abysmal.

Dak took three quarters to get going. The game should have been over early because Dallas was a substantially better team than Green Bay.

TwoDeep3 said:

I am wanting the opinions of the fans here on this. I know the season is coming, and what if is a stupid game. But I have changed my opinion about a piece of history in 2016 and wish to see if I am alone.

So,

What if:

In the last game against the Eagles in regular season what would the results have been if Jerry stepped in and advised Dak he has a future, but this is Tony's team, win, lose, or draw for the rest of this season.

1. Would the team (players) have accepted that?

2. They were already going to the play-offs. How would they have fared with a healthy Romo dropping dimes on his receivers and Zeke tearing the league a new rear end?

I was in favor of keeping Dak under center. You don't break a streak.

But upon reflection, I can't help thinking, Tony, knowing this was his swan song, and his ability to recognize the defenses and exploit them, he would have gotten the team - past those butt ugly Packers - to the NFC Championship game and taken the Cowboys to the Super Bowl.

I just see this moment in time, where the stars aligned, and Jones and The Red Headed cheerleader made the wrong move.

I think Tony would have handed the Patriots their butt in the first half, and then dissected them in the second to win it all.

Opinions?

Click to expand...

Dak has played better in all his playoff games then Romo ever did. It would have been a horrid move at that point.

If you were going to bring back Romo, it would have had to been in the middle of the season.

PA Cowboy Fan said:

No doubt in my mind that Romo gets hurt again if he came back.

Click to expand...

Because of “brittle bones” or whatever the Dak Slobber-logic is of the day...

erod said:

I thought a change should have been made toward the end of that season. The league had caught up with Dak, and the passing game was drying up. Good defenses were giving him fits. However, a mostly easy schedule allowed Dallas to keep the ship upright.

It wouldn't have hurt Dak's development at all. In fact, I think it could have GREATLY helped him to sponge off Romo for a bit. A little sideline observation of a good veteran quarterback is beneficial.

And if Romo got hurt, Dak is warmed and ready. There was no downside.

Dallas would have rolled through that awful Green Bay defense with ease from the start of that game, and would have been much better suited to try and score with the high-flying Falcons the next week.

Click to expand...

LOL.....Dak was in the middle of an 11 game win streak and making trolls like you look like the trolls that you are.

Vtwin said:

I don't understand the point you're making.

I understand what you say about rookies in general but not how it relates to the fact that no rook has ever gone that far. This was a regular talking point during that season as it progessed and the Cowboys piled up the wins.

In hindsight it likely would have been beneficial for Dak to sit and watch the veteran. Would probably be ahead of where he is now when it comes to reading defenses.

Click to expand...

It relates because your comment suggests that a rookie cannot win the Super Bowl simply because they are rookies when the reality is rookies are almost never in a position to find out.

erod said:

Atlanta had that in basically the first quarter the following week. That Packer defense was abysmal.

Dak took three quarters to get going. The game should have been over early because Dallas was a substantially better team than Green Bay.

Click to expand...

See...…..this is how clueless you are. Garrett and linehan continued to call a conservative, boring, predictable game plan until the game was on the line for 3 quarters. Finally, when they had no other choice, late in the game they finally opened things up, spread things out, and let Dak be DAk. THAT is when he thrived and won all the games for us.

The fact that you can't understand this basic point shows why you remain in the dark on so many obvious issues.

And your analysis is...…………."Dak took 3 quarters to get going". Do you realize how ridiculous that analysis sounds? It doesn't even make sense.

Super_Kazuya said:

Because of “brittle bones” or whatever the Dak Slobber-logic is of the day...

Click to expand...

Hey buddy

Nobody knows what would have happened.

1. The defense was a far bigger reason the cowboys lost to the Packers, than the offense was. This is a pretty consistent theme in the Rod Marinelli era by the way.

2. I loved Romo. I have nothing against him. But he had seasons with even better squads or just as good of squads as the 2016 season. 2007 and 2014 come to mind. And the team never made it to a Super Bowl.

If you want to look at the reasons the team got bounced from the playoffs, QB performance was about 5th down on the list. The defense wasn’t very good. The pass rush definitely wasn’t championship caliber. Even if we beat the Packers, with that poor defense who knows what happens against the Falcons and Patriots. Two very good and high powered offenses. That were just as dangerous as the Packers offense.

There really is no guarantee or IMO that much higher probability that the 2016 team wins the Super Bowl even with Romo as the QB. So quite frankly it’s not something worth continuing to wonder about and second guess. It’s over and done with.

What we need, if we want to make a nfc title game or Super Bowl is better defensive play, and a defense that actually generates turnovers and occasional points. That’s the BIGGEST championship factor we have been missing lately IMO.

For example. Last season the team played two playoff games and forced ZERO turnovers. That is not going to win a championship. Regardless of wha the offense does. Turnover ratio is one of the biggest factors of winning and losing nfl games. Hard to win the turnover battle when you don’t force turnovers.