Another Romo thread auto-attracting standard illogical injury counter arguments. Once again (but far from being the last time):
Going into 2016, Romo was the starter and Prescott was
a backup along with Moore. Romo and Moore were preseason injury casualties. Prescott started and had a historic September and October run for a rookie quarterback. Romo was medically cleared to return as starter beginning November. At this point, the decision-makers (a.k.a. Jones and Garrett) had multiple
logical options:
- Start Romo. Sit Prescott. If Romo's performance sucked, sit Romo. Start Prescott.
- Start Romo. Sit Prescott. If Romo became a quadriplegic, roll Romo onto a gurney. Start Prescott.
Short list. What actual real-life event happened?
Romo essentially retired mid November because the decision-makers decided two things:
- The franchise had better odds of winning an NFL title with a rookie quarterback, a feat never accomplished in league history.
- The franchise would transition to another permanent starting quarterback with a zero backup plan at the position beyond the mid-season mark of 2016.
Question: What is the perpetually unquestionable irony of the entire situation?
Answer: Peers, media members and portions of NFL fanbases completely supported Jones and Garrett's decision-making--the exact same two individuals who are ridiculed incessantly for not making logical decisions for the team.