4th Quarter, 3 TD Lead, Meaningless Game

[Idgit]

if romo just comes in to hand the ball off , that wont spark any controversy.
he is part of the team so use him as you would any bkup.

We don't know, since they chose not to have him hand off. The whole argument is silly, though, if you're not throwing the ball. Dak's not at risk handing the ball off, either.

In any event, I guess we'll see if they handle it differently next week. They might. But i disagree with anybody who lived through the QB debates around here this season and still thinks putting Romo in a game for Dak heading into the bye week prior to the playoffs is a good idea. I know it sounds stupid that anybody would spark up talk radio over it, but our fans really are gullible enough to fall for it. We've seen it over and over and over again.

 

[Idgit]

Because it has nothing to do with whether or not it was his "best game of the season".

Because it had everything to do with protecting the starter from injury.

And if the guy they're calling the 'backup quarterback' is unable to fulfill all of those duties - for whatever reason anyone wants to insert here - then there needs to be an option that can fulfill those duties.

There you have it.

The mistake will undoubtedly be corrected this week when Sanchez is active, which will only serve to show that it was made last night.

Not everybody is as concerned with protecting the starter from injury given the other considerations in the balance.

We'll see if Sanchez is active. I'd have no problem with that. With Smith out, it makes sense.

 

[jobberone]

Dak v Romo. Dak v Romo.

 

[muck4doo]

I am going to regret this, but do you even have any clue as to what you are arguing about?

It's his opinion that Romo is better. You disagree. What exactly is causing your confusion?

No confusion. I know exactly what he is implying. If you want to jump on board his fail boat, be his guest. The rest of us will be watching Dak pile up wins while you long for the Romo days of yore.

 

[plasticman]

I seriously doubt that both Dak and Zeke can even comprehend the idea of "meaningless games" or "playing for nothing". To these highly competitive guys, winning is it's own incentive.

LOL....rookies....these guys couldn't lose focus if they tried.

Dak only has slow starts when he's still upset about losing the coin toss.

 

[plasticman]

By playing Dak the entire game and Zeke almost the same, the Dallas Cowboys sent the rest of the league a clear message:

We are not afraid, these are not your typical rookies capable of being intimidated, don't even try because this offense just showed you what intimidation really looks like.

You playoff teams just witnessed the intensity of a "meaningless" game. You saw a quarterback fighting for every inch, a RB take vicious hits, pop right back up, just another day at the office. When the Lions thought they were playing tough, Zak and the Cowboys didn't cower and send our best players to the bench to keep them safe. That would imply that they felt they were unsafe. That might hurt their O-line's feelings.

Trust me, you don't want to be around this O-line when they start thinking that they need to prove they can keep their guys safe. Imagine how they will play when you meet them in their stadium during the games that matter the most for the entire season.

 

[Stash]

Not everybody is as concerned with protecting the starter from injury given the other considerations in the balance.

We'll see if Sanchez is active. I'd have no problem with that. With Smith out, it makes sense.

Sure it does. For some people, whatever they do becomes the right decision. That's well established.

And for the record, both Monday night and this upcoming game are meaningless for playoff seeding, so the "other considerations" don't add up.

 

[Kevinicus]

No confusion. I know exactly what he is implying. If you want to jump on board his fail boat, be his guest. The rest of us will be watching Dak pile up wins while you long for the Romo days of yore.

And you have a problem if someone thinks Romo is a better QB?

Sounds like a Romo hater to me.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

If Dak gets hurt, you instantly get better at the position, so no anxiety there. Let the kid play!

regardless of where you stand in the Dak vs Tony debate, there's really no intelligent reason to think that Romo can come in, having not played all season and having played very little the season before and outplay Dak. 6 or 7 weeks ago, when there was enough time for Romo to hit his stride for the playoffs, you could make that argument, but that time passed a long time ago. We saw Romo look very rusty against the Dolphins and Panthers last year and we even saw Romo look rusty against the 49ers in the opening game of 2014 after missing the entire off season program following the back surgery. This is Madden where you can just plug and play. There's timing with the receivers, and an overall flow, that QBs who change plays as often as Romo does, need to be in. Just because teams aren't prepared for what Romo brings to the table as opposed to Dak, I think he potentially could play very well in relief, and assuming Dak is ready to go the next game, all will be fine. But if Dak were to suffer a season ending injury, I think our SB chances would go down the drain.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

I am bummed for Tony that he didn't get to take the field and get a proper send off, and for the fans who didn't get a chance to give him one.

You'd have to ask Romo, but I don't think he'd want to enter the game just to hand it off.

 

[Idgit]

Sure it does. For some people, whatever they do becomes the right decision. That's well established.

And for the record, both Monday night and this upcoming game are meaningless for playoff seeding, so the "other considerations" don't add up.

Since you've got a history of thinking things are well established when they actually aren't, forgive me if I don't just take your word for it.

And playoff seeding isn't one of the other considerations I was referring to. Obviously.

 

[Stash]

Since you've got a history of thinking things are well established when they actually aren't, forgive me if I don't just take your word for it.

Don't care. You don't need to admit any of your failings for them to be accurate.

And playoff seeding isn't one of the other considerations I was referring to. Obviously.

The "obvious" part is that there was no good reason for it. And that's why no "considerations" of substance were specifically mentioned, and won't be. Again, the routine is well established.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

regardless of where you stand in the Dak vs Tony debate, there's really no intelligent reason to think that Romo can come in, having not played all season and having played very little the season before and outplay Dak. 6 or 7 weeks ago, when there was enough time for Romo to hit his stride for the playoffs, you could make that argument, but that time passed a long time ago. We saw Romo look very rusty against the Dolphins and Panthers last year and we even saw Romo look rusty against the 49ers in the opening game of 2014 after missing the entire off season program following the back surgery. This is Madden where you can just plug and play. There's timing with the receivers, and an overall flow, that QBs who change plays as often as Romo does, need to be in. Just because teams aren't prepared for what Romo brings to the table as opposed to Dak, I think he potentially could play very well in relief, and assuming Dak is ready to go the next game, all will be fine. But if Dak were to suffer a season ending injury, I think our SB chances would go down the drain.

Comparing this to previous situations doesn't mean much. Romo has never had a full 2 months to ease his way in to game shape before, he was usually thrown right back in as fast as possible. Obviously anytime a team has to go to their backup in a playoff game they are going to be in big trouble, regardless of who it is. Very rarely does that ever end well.

 

[Idgit]

Don't care. You don't need to admit any of your failings for them to be accurate.

The "obvious" part is that there was no good reason for it. And that's why no "considerations" of substance were specifically mentioned, and won't be. Again, the routine is well established.

You really need to keep the personal stuff out of it and just have a normal conversation.

The team wants Dak to get reps. The team doesn't want the divisive QB talk to start back up The team doesn't want to risk injury to Romo with the starting LT out because they believe he has trade value (Smith was not out to start last week, so that's a consideration that's changed). The team could play Beasley at QB as easily as Sanchez because, as you say, the game was not playoff meaningful. You might not see any of that as substantial because you're flying by a visceral emotional reaction instead of logic, but that's irrelevant.

 

[Stash]

You really need to keep the personal stuff out of it and just have a normal conversation.

I'll be happy to, as soon as you start the practice yourself. Maybe you think that your cheap shots are well disguised, but again you would be mistaken.

The team wants Dak to get reps.

Reps he somehow didn't need in the final preseason game before his very first start? But somehow, he needs them now? After the season that he's had, with a Pro Bowl nod, leading this team to the best record they've ever had. Yeah, "he needs reps". What a load of garbage!

This isn't about playing Dak at all. You know it, and I know it. If the team wants to keep his routine and keep him sharp, and get him some playing time, I'm fine with that. This is all about the other guy and the issues his 'circumstances' create.

The team doesn't want the divisive QB talk to start back up

Anybody who'd try to start it would only make themselves look like a fool. And anyone who would make team decisions based on perception is an even bigger one. This is about a championship, not about want someone in the media writes or thinks.

The team doesn't want to risk injury to Romo with the starting LT out because they believe he has trade value (Smith was not out to start last week, so that's a consideration that's changed).

So you risk the starter? Again, what the hell is this about? If it's about winning a championship, you make sound decisions on the field, not worry about what might happen after the season ends. If Romo can't play or isn't available, have Sanchez do it. He's on the roster. But you sure as hell don't risk your starter.

The team could play Beasley at QB as easily as Sanchez because, as you say, the game was not playoff meaningful.

Sure, why have a quarterback play quarterback? Let's have Beasley do it. Again, you'll throw out whatever lame, flimsy excuse attempt you can in another vain effort to try to overlook poor decision-making and planning. In your own world, the Cowboys can never possibly do any wrong. And that misperception taints everything you type.

You might not see any of that as substantial because you're flying by a visceral emotional reaction instead of logic, but that's irrelevant.

You shouldn't bring up the words "logic" or "substantial" after posting this load of bull, you only continue to make yourself look worse.

 

[Idgit]

I'll be happy to, as soon as you start the practice yourself. Maybe you think that your cheap shots are well disguised, but again you would be mistaken.

Reps he somehow didn't need in the final preseason game before his very first start? But somehow, he needs them now? After the season that he's had, with a Pro Bowl nod, leading this team to the best record they've ever had. Yeah, "he needs reps". What a load of garbage!

This isn't about playing Dak at all. You know it, and I know it. If the team wants to keep his routine and keep him sharp, and get him some playing time, I'm fine with that. This is all about the other guy and the issues his 'circumstances' create.

Anybody who'd try to start it would only make themselves look like a fool. And anyone who would make team decisions based on perception is an even bigger one. This is about a championship, not about want someone in the media writes or thinks.

So you risk the starter? Again, what the hell is this about? If it's about winning a championship, you make sound decisions on the field, not worry about what might happen after the season ends. If Romo can't play or isn't available, have Sanchez do it. He's on the roster. But you sure as hell don't risk your starter.

Sure, why have a quarterback play quarterback? Let's have Beasley do it. Again, you'll throw out whatever lame, flimsy excuse attempt you can in another vain effort to try to overlook poor decision-making and planning. In your own world, the Cowboys can never possibly do any wrong. And that misperception taints everything you type.

You shouldn't bring up the words "logic" or "substantial" after posting this load of bull, you only continue to make yourself look worse.

There's no need to reply to this individually. And I won't because I hate it when people thread replies like you did here.

You don't place value on the considerations. Other people do. That doesn't mean other people are making excuses. It means they don't see things the was you do in a situation where there's room for reasonable people to disagree.

And thankfully, you aren't the arbiter for what's logical or substantial around here.

Have a good day, stash. I'm out.

 

[Stash]

There's no need to reply to this individually. And I won't because I hate it when people thread replies like you did here.

It helps to make the rebuttal and refuting clearer.

You don't place value on the considerations. Other people do.

Not "other people" - you. Singularly. Alone. You're speaking for yourself individually, there is no collective. But again, I'm not surprised that you would once again make that incorrect assumption. The pattern is clear.

That doesn't mean other people are making excuses. It means they don't see things the was you do in a situation where there's room for reasonable people to disagree.

Again, not "other people", you. I'm not having this debate with anyone other than you. You alone continue to try to defend this poor move. And once again, you mistakenly try to label your own opinion as the "reasonable" one. As per the usual pattern. Typical.

And thankfully, you aren't the arbiter for what's logical or substantial around here.

How incredibly naive and ignorant that you would accuse anyone else of your own practice. Are you truly this lacking in self awareness?

Have a good day, stash. I'm out.

You also, thanks.[/quote]

 

[Idgit]

It helps to make the rebuttal and refuting clearer.

Not "other people" - you. Singularly. Alone. You're speaking for yourself individually, there is no collective. But again, I'm not surprised that you would once again make that incorrect assumption. The pattern is clear.
Again, not "other people", you. I'm not having this debate with anyone other than you. You alone continue to try to defend this poor move. And once again, you mistakenly try to label your own opinion as the "reasonable" one. As per the usual pattern. Typical.

How incredibly naive and ignorant that you would accuse anyone else of your own practice. Are you truly this lacking in self awareness?

You also, thanks.

I actually have time for another reply. Lucky you. When I say 'other people' I'm referring to others in the thread who are making the same specific arguments re: not sitting Dak that I referenced. So, no, I don't mean just me.

And I never suggested I was the arbiter of what's logical or substantial. People can decide that for themselves. I only suggested you are not. I happen to have my own opinions about the quality of your logic, but others may feel differently about it. I do believe I'm much better judge of what's logical than you are, stash, but only our posting history can support or not support that. I'm comfortable with that fact. I'll stack my history of being reasonable against yours any day.

 

[Stash]

I actually have time for another reply. Lucky you. When I say 'other people' I'm referring to others in the thread who are making the same specific arguments re: not sitting Dak that I referenced. So, no, I don't mean just me.

Nobody is debating me here other than you, and you alone. There are no "other people" in our debate.

And I never suggested I was the arbiter of what's logical or substantial.

No, you only try to play the role in this forum...



Maybe you think you're getting away with something, but you're not. Your veiled potshots and insults and attempted undermining of opposing viewpoints are clear for all to see. Again, the pattern is well established.

You mistakenly believe that someone gave you the right to determine what is 'rational' or 'reasonable' and to determine which opinions and viewpoints have validity and which ones don't. The fact is that you don't. Nobody asked for your approval and nobody needs it.

People can decide that for themselves. I only suggested you are not. I happen to have my own opinions about the quality of your logic, but others may feel differently about it.

They do.

I do believe I'm much better judge of what's logical than you are, stash, but only our posting history can support or not support that.

You believe you're better at it than everybody. It's a well-established fact around here. And it's this hubris that continues to create the biggest issues.

I'm comfortable with that fact. I'll stack my history of being reasonable against yours any day.

As would I. In fact, I'd invite the forum to voice their honest opinions in any manner suggested. I know what the truth is, and I welcome it.

 

[Kevinicus]

regardless of where you stand in the Dak vs Tony debate, there's really no intelligent reason to think that Romo can come in, having not played all season and having played very little the season before and outplay Dak. 6 or 7 weeks ago, when there was enough time for Romo to hit his stride for the playoffs, you could make that argument, but that time passed a long time ago. We saw Romo look very rusty against the Dolphins and Panthers last year and we even saw Romo look rusty against the 49ers in the opening game of 2014 after missing the entire off season program following the back surgery. This is Madden where you can just plug and play. There's timing with the receivers, and an overall flow, that QBs who change plays as often as Romo does, need to be in. Just because teams aren't prepared for what Romo brings to the table as opposed to Dak, I think he potentially could play very well in relief, and assuming Dak is ready to go the next game, all will be fine. But if Dak were to suffer a season ending injury, I think our SB chances would go down the drain.

So you're saying don't play Romo when he is still feeling strong effects from an injury?

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.