12-4 with Romo?

[gimmesix]

Not sure that high but dallas would've made the playoffs. But we wouldn't have made a run at the sb or anything.

I agree with that. I think we would have finished much like we did last year. The running game was less effective this year while the defense was better overall (but still faded late in games too often). Not having Dez also would have limited our chances and I'm not sure we could beat either Arizona or Carolina even with Romo and Dez.

 

[gimmesix]

It would have been a lot better for sure. The D might have gotten more turnovers, which happens when teams are playing from behind. They would not have been worn down in the 4th Q, DMac would have led the league in rushing or very close to it. I had us at 11-5 before the season began and in the SB, all of which I think is very possible with Romo at QB. This is a QB Driven league. Without one, you don't stand a chance.

That's the difficult thing to figure out. Teams were more conservative against us overall because we couldn't score. If we were able to score more, would that have led to more turnovers: Would some of the low-scoring games by our opponents have become higher-scoring games for them?

 

[noshame]

Why don't you actually review Romo's play THIS season and re-think this. You do realize if not for Coughlin's inexplicable choice to throw the ball we would have come out of the gate with a loss, to a Giants team who looked horrible at the beginning of the season. Then on to Philly where Weeden came in and clearly played better than Tony, (who already hurt his back in game one)

This was not 2014 where Romo had a new offense, which featured a lot of horizontal routes and a kid out of the slot nobody could cover. With the OL that surprised everybody,Tony was able to eat a ham sandwich IN THE POCKET, AND STILL STEP INTO HIS THROW.

No, teams played us different this year, full pressure, and made us attempt to go deep, which none of our qbs (including Romo) were able to do. I would give you 8-8 best case, but everybody knows if you crunch Tony, he's done, so it's all moot.

 

[DFWJC]

10-6 to 12-4 range.

 

[gimmesix]

I predicted 9 wins prior to the season with a healthy Romo. Based on how the Cowboys looked in the opener they looked like an 8 or 9 win team with Romo. The team looked very similar to the teams that went 8-8. Romo had 7 INT's in less than 4 games because he was back having to carry the offense so there was going to be some issues even had he stayed healthy for a full season. When you go 1-11 without your starting QB your issues are a lot deeper than QB.

I don't know if I'd say we looked that similar to the teams that went 8-8. The defense was better than it had been (even last year) other than the lack of turnovers, which might have changed.

Romo's final numbers were affected by that awful Carolina game where he was rusty/off and the Panthers had a good defensive plan and even his first week back against Miami, where you could tell he wasn't in midseason form. I think his numbers would have looked a lot better if he had been healthy from start to finish, plus McFadden got the running game going enough that Romo wouldn't have had to carry the team, at least not much.

The issues are definitely deeper than QB, but a good QB can cover up a lot of bad. With Romo, running lanes open wider (except on first down when everyone knows we're running the ball) and the defense doesn't get the chance to blow leads as often or at least has Romo to rescue them when they do.

 

[Risen Star]

So this 1-11 team without him would have gone 12-4 with him? This is what people believe?

 

[tyke1doe]

I usually don't get into the what-if scenarios, but I can't help but wonder how this season would have gone with a healthy Romo.

We went 3-1 with Romo (so maybe the easy thing to do is multiple that for the season to reach 12-4; but who wants to take the easy way?)

Now, I could be wrong, but I believe having Romo is worth at least a touchdown more than we scored in any game (not having Dez could bring down that average, though), That gives us at least five more victories, plus the Giants game that we lost by seven, to put us at 10 victories.

I think we would have lost to the Patriots and Panthers no matter what. The Packers also beat us pretty handily. So those three I'll count as losses even with Romo to make us 10-3.

I think we would have beaten the Bills, who only scored 16, for 11-3, and lost to either Atlanta (defense played poorly) or Washington at the end of the year for 12-4.

Yes, before anyone says it, I know this is an exercise in futility, but considering how futile this season has been, I have to go to my happy place ... and 12-4 makes me happy.

I predicted 14-2 with Romo. Looking back, the only lose I see with Romo is the Panthers. I think we beat the usually suspects, who we barely lost to anyway, and I think we would have beaten the Patriots and the Packers with Romo under center.

So we would have finished 15-1.

 

[MrPeanutbutter]

So this 1-11 team without him would have gone 12-4 with him? This is what people believe?

Right. It's clearly something in the middle.

The better question is "how does a healthy Romo affect next year's team?"

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Ask yourself in Tony is worth 8 points per game to this team combined offensive and defensive impact.

If you think yes.... Go look at how many 1 score contests we lost.

There is your answer.

 

[gimmesix]

So this 1-11 team without him would have gone 12-4 with him? This is what people believe?

I do because I don't think we were very far away from victory in quite a few games. Would be different if the defense was giving up 42 points a game or if the running game had stalled completely. I don't see many games that we lost that we couldn't have won with a QB who could get us TDs.

Now, I don't know how not having Dez would have affected his play, but there were plenty of games where it was easy to see that the backup QBs missed open receivers.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

That's the difficult thing to figure out. Teams were more conservative against us overall because we couldn't score. If we were able to score more, would that have led to more turnovers: Would some of the low-scoring games by our opponents have become higher-scoring games for them?

Very hard to figure out. But I am very confident that a healthy Romo all year and we are playing this weekend not sitting at home. The horrible QB play affected the entire team.

 

[tyke1doe]

People that think, like Jerry that the Cowboys would have been 12-4 with a healthy Romo haven't been watching these games close enough this year, there is significant problems with the coaching, the scheme, player development and philosophy within this franchise......All you have to do is read Bob Sturm's column today for a dose of that reality how bad this team was this year......

I agree with you that there are problems with the coaching. But Romo basically calls his own plays anyway.

Now consider sans Romo how we fared?

vs. Falcons. We were up 28-17 at half time. Do you think we lose that game with Romo?
vs. Saints. We lose in overtime by 6. Weeden contributes one touchdown. Romo is worth more than one touchdown, which means we win this game.
vs. Patriots. We're tied in the first quarter and Hardy is balling. We can't muster but two field goals, and our defense tires because our offense can't do anything. Romo makes a difference in this game and delivers a win.
vs. Giants. We lose by seven. Cassel throws just one touchdown. See Saints comment.
vs. Seahawks. We lose by one in a very winnable game. We score no touchdowns at all. See Saints and Giants comments.
vs. Eagles. We lose AGAIN in overtime. This game, however, Cassel throws three touchdown passes. Good for him. But I still think Romo is worth a victory.
vs. Buccaneers. Pu-lease. We win this game going away with Romo.
vs. Packers. Although we loss by 21, we are down by 7 at the end of the third quarter. We score NOTHING in the first half. The Packers aren't that great of a team. No way we go into halftime without a touchdown.
vs. Jets. Romo vs. Fitzpatrick? Win. Next.
vs. Bill. Starting our third-string quarterback, we lose by 10. But our worn-down defense gives up a late touchdown because our offense can't really do anything. Our best scoring threat was a kicker. Next.
vs. Skins. We're basically just playing for draft position.

So when I review all of our games I see ...

1. Our defense does enough to keep the games close
2. Our offense doesn't do enough to put points on the board
3. With the exception of the Carolina game and the meaningless Commanders game at the end of the year, we were never outplayed for the full duration of any game. We had a chance to win several games - if not all of them with the possible exception of the Carolina game.

I'd like to think that playing that close with a second-string quarterback who was a failure in Cleveland and another who had to learn the playbook on the fly and another third-string quarterback who was basically wet behind the ears, we would have won the majority of those games with a healthy Romo - our quarterback ,our offensive coordinator AND coach.

 

[Doomsay]

We probably would have made the playoffs, but would have been schooled once we got there by superior coaching.

 

[willia451]

There's no way to really know. Because its not just about Romo or no Romo. Its about a smorgasbord of bad decisions the franchise made in the off-season that lead to the implosion. Thinking Panty Man could lead the running game being chief among them. But there are many others I won't get into. They've all already been discussed ad nauseam.

But to the OPs question. 8-8. Back to our baseline. That feels about right.

Speaking of Romo. Dude is probably done. He'll play for at least 2 more years if he can. Mainly because based on his contract, the team really needs him to. But don't expect miracles from him anymore. Or a full season. Those days are long gone.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

This argument again. I'll just spit out a few random tidbits in no particular order:

* Romo has a career winning percentage of .602. That means, on average, he wins 9.5 games if he is healthy for all 16 games.

* 9.5 games isn't anything to brag about. 10-6 teams miss the playoffs some years. 9-7 teams miss the playoffs most years.

* The kicker is, Romo, on average, misses 3 games a season. And those 3 games are almost always a loss.

* 9.5 wins when healthy plus the fact that he's only healthy 13 games a season explains why we're usually 8-8 in the Romo era.

* This is no knock on Romo. It shows our team is so bad that even he can't save them and that he can't be relied on to play every game.

* Sure we "might've" won the division if he was healthy. But this is a historically bad year for the NFC East. So it's not much of an accomplishment.

* We went 3-1 with a healthy Romo this year. The three teams we beat had an combined average of 6.5 wins.

* The only team we played that had a winning record absolutely embarrassed us.

* Even those 3 wins weren't gimmes. We got very lucky against the Giants and struggled offensively against the Eagles.

To recap: 1) Historically, we're not very good with Romo, 2) Historically, we're awful without Romo, 3) Historically, Romo is bound to miss 3 games a season, 4) This season, we didn't look all that great in games with Romo, 5) This season, our only real hope was that our division was so bad, 6) You shouldn't let the mediocrity of the division blind you from the fact that this team has serious issues and has always had them... If you do, your name is probably Jerry Jones.

 

[Bleu Star]

9-7.

This team has a lot of issues.

Romo would have bailed us out a few games and by 9-7 that means 5 which is a lot and more than you can ask. He likely would have had another bad game or so like Carolina it happens to all QBs.

Assuming still no Dez or a shaky Dez too.

Yep. 9-7 is about right. Just good enough to win a sorry division but not good enough to make any real noise in the playoffs.

Romo wins on field HC/OC of the year. A new award category is created just for him.

 

[mrmojo]

Romo isn't perfect, based on history he has had bad games too, along with decisions and mistakes that have cost us games. Factoring this in and a RB by committee, an injured Dez, Lee, Gregory, McClain and Hardy out for part of the season, I would say 8-8. 9-7

 

[Bleu Star]

That all said, since we are speculating, I speculate that Romo will not play another full season between now and when that social security check starts rolling in. He will give a valiant effort as usual but his body will remind him of how beat down it actually is every season.

 

[cowboys2233]

They got smashed by the best team in the league with Romo in the lineup is all I know. He only played well the last drive of the Giant game and last half of the Miami game. This team wasnt going far regardless.

Yeah, because Romo was perfectly healthy for that game. Oh, and Carolina isn't the best team in the league -- heck, they're only third best in the conference behind Seattle and Arizona.

 

[percyhoward]

10-6 to 12-4 range.

I was gonna say 11-5.