Just a What If. 2016

MarcusRock · Aug 16, 2019

And Dez STILL didn't catch it in Green Bay. Blame Zeke's holdout .... for everything!

HungryLion · Aug 16, 2019

MarcusRock said:
And Dez STILL didn't catch it in Green Bay. Blame Zeke's holdout .... for everything!

Demarco Murray’s fumble. Biggest play of that game. If he holds onto that ball we win.

McKDaddy · Aug 16, 2019

DakPresgoat said:
You wanna know what I wonder about more from that 2016 season? More than what would have happened if Romo was starting?

I wonder about how on gods green earth, Aaron Rodgers didn’t fumble that football on the final drive when Jeff Heath clobbered him from the blind side.

Rodgers has one hand on the football and for absolutely drilled. Somehow he managed to hold onto that ball. Next play he drives the dagger through all of our hearts.

That eats me up more than whether Romo should have played or not.

We have been the victim of some rather miraculous things like that over the last decade.

As the play was unfolding, I was already looking for the recovery. The fumble was a given.

Vtwin · Aug 16, 2019

DallasEast said:
Yes. Jerry Jones, Jason Garrett and practically every single individual caught up into the euphoria/chemistry nonsense of the 2016 season. No exceptions.

However, it should also be noted that there was a small minority who both wanted Prescott as the starter and never thought he could lead the team to the Super Bowl that season. They simply wanted Romo gone since they had zero respect for him. Personally, I respect their opinion even though I disagree with it because it was not someone's own reasoning based on the chemistry fallacy.

I would love to know what JJ, JG etc think about that decision now with the benefit of three seasons of hindsight.

What they really think, not what they would blurt into a mic for public consumption.

McKDaddy · Aug 16, 2019

DakPresgoat said:
Demarco Murray’s fumble. Biggest play of that game. If he holds onto that ball we win.

The game you are talking about wasn't the 2016 game (which was in Dallas). It was the 2014 game in Green Bay. Lot of plays in that game contributed. I can't get mad at Demarco for that one though. It was an unreal play by Peppers. I can understand why Demarco didn't think anyone was going to touch him & he was just focused on getting to full speed. Every time i watch it, I am more amazed at Peppers effort and length to get his hand on the ball.

HungryLion · Aug 16, 2019

McKDaddy said:
The game you are talking about wasn't the 2016 game (which was in Dallas). It was the 2014 game in Green Bay. Lot of plays in that game contributed. I can't get mad at Demarco for that one though. It was an unreal play by Peppers. I can understand why Demarco didn't think anyone was going to touch him & he was just focused on getting to full speed. Every time i watch it, I am more amazed at Peppers effort and length to get his hand on the ball.

I know that. I was responding to MarcusRock when he mentioned the game where “Dez didn’t catch it”

Yeah I hear you about Demarco. It was just one of those unfortunate things. I don’t blame him totally. Obviously the cowboys could still lose even if he doesn’t fumble too. But if I was listing key plays. That would be #1 probably. Or if Dez would have just held onto the ball and not reached for the pylon. The ball probably doesn’t come loose and it would be a catch. I don’t blame Dez either.

Just some of those crazy things.

McKDaddy · Aug 16, 2019

DakPresgoat said:
I know that. I was responding to MarcusRock when he mentioned the game where “Dez didn’t catch it”

Ahhh, gotcha.

JustChip · Aug 16, 2019

DallasEast said:
For the 2016 playoff game to have been the 2014 playoff game all over again, you would have needed:

1. Elliott to fumble and lead to points for Green Bay (e.g. Murray 2014 playoff game).
2. Bryant to catch/not catch/<expletive> Blandino (e.g. Bryant 2014 playoff game) and subtract a likely six or seven points for Dallas.

Additionally

3. Prescott not throw an interception deep in Packer territory (e.g. something Romo did not do in the 2014 playoff game) and subtract three, six, or possible seven points on an earlier drive.

Every game is different. It could be Green Bay could have blown out Dallas in the 2016 playoff if certain game day conditions had been met. Likewise, Dallas could have blown out Green Bay if certain events had occurred.

However, using Romo as the only variable while comparing each respective playoff game does not logically work. In fact, it is arguable that it works more against Prescott and lessens the responsibility of the defense's actual failure during that specific game.

I’m not using Romo as the only variable nor am I even blaming him for the 2014 loss. Obviously each game is unique, but what was constant between the 2 games is the defense could not stop AR & the Packers for one drive at the end when they needed to.

Much is made about the catch/non-catch in the 2014 game, but all the defense had to do was stop the Packers after that and the offense gets the ball back with another opportunity.

BTW, that’s the same as the bobbled snap Seattle playoff game. The defense couldn’t stop Seattle after that play until it was too late.

Vtwin · Aug 16, 2019

DakPresgoat said:
Call out my question as hyperbole but then throw out factually inaccurate comments to try and strengthen your point? Like “wait 3 quarters to wake up?

The offense scored 13 points in the first half. Not a great almost. But a far cry from nothing. It also completely ignores the fact that the QB isn’t the only reason the offense didn’t score more points in the first half. Other players on offense were making crucial mistakes too.

Dak, let's simplify this a bit. Forget defense for a second. Let's focus strictly on offense and what we can expect them to do given the opportunities they have against the defense they are facing.

You have on your bench a rookie QB and an experienced vet who holds records and is considered to be a top producer in the passing game, arguably at the top of his game.

You also have what had been considered the best o-line in the league and the best running game in the league.

Now given all that you must admit it is pretty hard to make a case that the experienced, record holding vet at the top of his game doesn't give the best chance to win. Especially against a defense whose secondary is ripe for the picking.

Isn't it?

CowboysRule · Aug 16, 2019

It is possible if Romo starts that game the defense plays better...or maybe plays less. Like others have stated, Romo probably would've sliced up that Packers D from the start, hopefully building a decent lead and allowing us to do what this team does best, control the TOP, wear down the opposing D, and keep AR off the field. Our defense was still garbage but the less time they are on the field, the better.

DFWJC · Aug 16, 2019

Ranking the last 5 home Playoff games and opponents defenses, best to worst

2014 Detroit (dominant top 2 defense. Would normally be #1 defense but Seattle D back then was epic))
2007 New York (peaked, got healthy and dominanted in playoffs. Held NE to 14 pts in Super Bowl win)
2009 Philly (12th ranked D was not peaking in playoffs...Dallas destroyed them)
2018 Seattle (16th ranked defense had lost a lot of key players. So-so)
2016 Green Bay (21st ranked defense was very porous....especially on the road)

Oz-of-Cowboy-Country · Aug 16, 2019

I wanted Dallas to give Romo his starting job back for two reasons....

1) No rookie QB has ever won a Superbowl. Meaning our best chance of winning the Superbowl that year laid with Romo.

2) Salary cap reasons. If we would have let Romo be our starter over the last three seasons, Dak would not be demanding or looking for a 32 million dollar a year contract. This year, Dak's contract year, could have been his first year as a starter. With only one year of starting under his belt the price of keeping Dak drops probably by 8 million.

THAT'S....just my opinion. Opinions vary.

HungryLion · Aug 16, 2019

Vtwin said:
Dak, let's simplify this a bit. Forget defense for a second. Let's focus strictly on offense and what we can expect them to do given the opportunities they have against the defense they are facing.

You have on your bench a rookie QB and an experienced vet who holds records and is considered to be a top producer in the passing game, arguably at the top of his game.

You also have what had been considered the best o-line in the league and the best running game in the league.

Now given all that you must admit it is pretty hard to make a case that the experienced, record holding vet at the top of his game doesn't give the best chance to win. Especially against a defense whose secondary is ripe for the picking.

Isn't it?

A healthy Romo would have given you a better chance to win. Yes I agree with you on that. I have said before Romo in his prime, was better than Dak has been thus far. I have never argued he wasn’t. I just tend to think Dak can and will get better than he is now. Which some people don’t agree with.

That’s all fine.

I did read the OP’s question as being a “what if” what if Romo started. Do they beat Green Bay? Do we win a Super Bowl? And the point I was trying to
Make is. I honestly don’t think we do. Because the same thing that held Romo back in previous years (poor defensive play) probably holds him
And the team back in 2016 also.

My posts in this thread were never anti Romo, or pro Dak. They were actually anti our defense and how poorly it performed for about a decade straight, including in that 2016 packers playoff game.

Although they were better last year (still need more turnovers though)

Romo was never the problem or reason we didn’t win a championship.

I also don’t believe Dak was the primary reason we lost to Green Bay in 2016. Yeah you could have gotten more out of Romo probably. But that was NOT championship level defensive play. IMO.

Thank you for the respectful question @Vtwin

Cowboy4ever · Aug 16, 2019

I said it then, I have said it sense and I will say it again.. not putting Tony back in when he was healthy was the biggest mistake Garrett has made as HC of the Cowboys, IMO. I get that Dak was playing very well, I know the streak they were on, etc. But no rookie QB has ever won the SB and if that was the goal, then Tony gave you the best chance. I know some will say Tony's health is more important but I say that it was his decision. I love Tony but how he ages and his back are not my concern, those are his issues. 1 of 2 Things would have happened if Tony would have taken the team back over, like he should have.
1. He stays healthy and gives us a better chance to win it all and at the same time, he would have built back up his value and we could have easily traded him at the end of the year, regardless on how the season ended.
2. He get's hurt, everyone knows he is done and it is Dak's team without any questions.

Dak had shown enough to know that he was going to be the future of the team at that point in 2016. There was no down side to have him sit after Tony was healthy. it was a huge mistake not to do so.

America's Cowboy · Aug 16, 2019

DallasEast · Aug 16, 2019

Vtwin said:
I would love to know what JJ, JG etc think about that decision now with the benefit of three seasons of hindsight.

What they really think, not what they would blurt into a mic for public consumption.

DallasEast · Aug 16, 2019

JustChip said:
I’m not using Romo as the only variable nor am I even blaming him for the 2014 loss. Obviously each game is unique, but what was constant between the 2 games is the defense could not stop AR & the Packers for one drive at the end when they needed to.

Much is made about the catch/non-catch in the 2014 game, but all the defense had to do was stop the Packers after that and the offense gets the ball back with another opportunity.

BTW, that’s the same as the bobbled snap Seattle playoff game. The defense couldn’t stop Seattle after that play until it was too late.

My apologies. I made my earlier reply based upon:

JustChip said:
Had Tony played (and survived for the whole game), it would’ve simply been 2014 all over again.

My own argument has never been that Romo re-insertion into the lineup would equal a guaranteed playoff victory. There were a number of negative consequences involving not only the defense in either game to make that assertion.

No. My discussion point has always been simple and is not only applicable to this single Dallas/Green Bay topic. My contention is a veteran (franchise) quarterback should always be used in place of a rookie quarterback in any playoff game IF the ultimate goal is winning a championship. The odds massively favor the veteran player over the rookie player.

I have a long running argument about the Seattle playoff game and the particular K-ball used during the bobbled snap, so I will just not get into it. :laugh:

DallasEast · Aug 16, 2019

McKDaddy said:
I can't get mad at Demarco for that one though. It was an unreal play by Peppers. I can understand why Demarco didn't think anyone was going to touch him & he was just focused on getting to full speed. Every time i watch it, I am more amazed at Peppers effort and length to get his hand on the ball.

Others were and are still upset at Murray. I am one of them.

Defensive players reach to strip the ball on every humanly possible occasion. Every single possible occasion. It is why all coaches, from junior high school to the NFL, teach running backs to secure the ball as soon as it is handed or tossed to them. I could be wrong but I believe no coach in existence has ever instructed a running back to wait until they have cleared the line of scrimmage before covering up the football.

The reason why Peppers was easily successful during his outstretched reach back into the hole created by Zach Martin was a simple case of Murray not taking the elementary step of first covering up by keeping two hands and forearms on the ball. Murray saw daylight (blinding daylight in fact) and broke into full stride as if he was already into the secondary. Guy must have spaced out for a split-second and thought he was Tony freaking Dorsett...

JustChip · Aug 16, 2019

DallasEast said:
No. My discussion point has always been simple and is not only applicable to this single Dallas/Green Bay topic. My contention is a veteran (franchise) quarterback should always be used in place of a rookie quarterback in any playoff game IF the ultimate goal is winning a championship. The odds massively favor the veteran player over the rookie player.

I agree as a general rule. However, I’m a firm believer in momentum and teams simply getting on a roll. History is rife with that (2015 Panthers or 2016 Falcons). Frankly, momentum and being “in the zone” is as large a factor as experience.

Nobody knows what would’ve happened had Romo been reinserted when he was medically cleared or for that game. What was gained in experience and passing acumen might have been more than offset in reduced mobility. Dak made some critical plays with his legs that Romo couldn’t. Romo probably would’ve made some in the passing game Dak didn’t. End result is maybe they win, but maybe they lose handily. Defenses knew better what to do against a Romo-led team at that point than a Dak-led team.

sunalsorises · Aug 16, 2019

Had Romo started the playoffs and won the Super Bowl back in 2016 then Dak could only ask for $35 million per year now instead of $40 million per the Nick Foles effect. They finally settle at $32 million which leaves just enough money to sign Zeke without the hold out. With Dak and Zeke signed the Cowboys win the super bowl again in 2019 which obligates Cooper to take a team friendly deal rather than play under the franchise tag in 2020. Dallas then becomes the favorite to repeat in 2020 and they go on to beat Washington in Washington’s last home game before the election which ensures the democratic candidate a victory per the well noted and often studied Washington Football Team Rule.

Just a What If. 2016

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Safety third

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Safety third

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Cowboys 24/7/365

Cowboys 24/7/365

Cowboys 24/7/365

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member