Just a What If. 2016

DallasEast said:

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...

Click to expand...

Super_Kazuya said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

408Cowboy said:

You know that was in response to the 2007 game right?

Click to expand...

Irvin88_4life said:

Inaccuracies? You mean some of the deep throws he missed to Gallup or what not...... That's a false narrative, has he missed throws, absolutely but name 1 QB ever that threw 100 percent.

Last season Dak was 45 percent on deep passes which was ahead of Rodgers and Wentz, tied with Brady and 1 percent lower than Mahomes...... Those guys are said to be accurate though. See the stupid dumb narrative now.

Click to expand...

sbark said:

Could've been the teams Willis reed moment ...never know

Click to expand...

DakPresgoat said:

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.

Click to expand...

JustChip said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

starfan1 said:

Im not trying to argue that daks is innefective but some of his passes are off target just like all QBs although he seems to get criticized more for it. And he and gallup can get better but some of thats on gallup

Click to expand...

DallasEast said:

Fair enough. There is another general rule:

No rookie quarterback has ever appeared or helped win either a pre- or post-Super Bowl era championship.

Essentially, the goal of the 2016 season was to gain experience only. I have one friend in real life and one member of the board here who either agree or partial agree in perspective. I do not agree but fully respect them for it.

Click to expand...

DallasEast said:

Fair enough. There is another general rule:

No rookie quarterback has ever appeared or helped win either a pre- or post-Super Bowl era championship.

Essentially, the goal of the 2016 season was to gain experience only. I have one friend in real life and one member of the board here who either agree or partial agree in perspective. I do not agree but fully respect them for it.

Click to expand...

408Cowboy said:

I guess I'm in the even smaller group that believed we saw what Romo was and it was just time to move on.

Click to expand...

DakPresgoat said:

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.

Click to expand...

starfan1 said:

was Big ben a rookie or 2nd year when he did it?

Click to expand...

JustChip said:

Verily, verily, no rookie QB has l d his team to the SB. But I have a saying I like to use - I never did anything until the 1st time I did.

Click to expand...

starfan1 said:

i truly believe even if they dont over turn Dez catch the packers would have driven the field Rodgers was carving them up like a Tday turkey

Click to expand...

DallasEast said:

Well, no. It is the same singular group if an associate's criteria is Romo should not have been re-inserted as starter for [fill in the blank reason] and not simply because he/she wanted another quarterback to take his place. There may be various self-validations made on the surface but the underlying reasoning is one and the same for the larger group.

Click to expand...