How are injury arguments illogical?
Dak along with Zeke won several games in a row up to that point and ended up winning 11 in a row that season. You don't disrupt that period. Romo was knocked out of the game the last 3 games he was in. He got knocked out against the Eagles, came back against Carolina, got knocked back out that very same game he came back... then during preseason against the Seahawks, he got knocked out of the game again after a couple of snaps. That's THREE times in a row where he got knocked out of a game without managing to complete a full game. You don't risk disrupting that sort of chemistry in the middle of a season.
How have we treated Romo badly? He has never had to compete for his job throughout his nearly decade long tenure here. They stocked his cupboard full of offensive weapons despite all this nonsense we hear about him carrying the team. He simply got injured too many times and they found a qb who was playing excellently at the time.
Actual Super Bowl contending opportunities are usually fleeting in the NFL. In my opinion, Dallas had a contending team in 2016 just as it did in 2014.
All the championship winners and runner-ups, throughout the half century of Super Bowls and nearly entire century of the league, have been led by veteran quarterbacks. Not one single rookie quarterback ever accomplished the feat. However, in 2016, Dallas would ‘prove’ to be the exception.
How?
The answer is chemistry. The proven fact in the sport of football is the
single most important player on a team’s roster cannot be replaced because doing so guarantees the
team will lose.
Of course, that supposed fact is false. The euphoric counter argument in 2016, primarily argued within cowboyszone, and totally supported equally by Jones and Garrett, was that Romo, the
veteran quarterback, would:
- automatically help lose regular season games, causing the team to miss the playoffs, despite history establishing he led the team to previous playoff berths.
- automatically end any playoff run, despite history showing he led the team to both playoff losses and victories.
- automatically, spontaneously and permanently disrupt the half season long offense’s successful execution after re-entering the starting rotation and sequentially re-exiting after sustaining another game or season ending injury, despite the history of football, throughout many decades involving multitudes of professional, college and high school teams, not always suffering such catastrophe but actually excelling from such an event.
Despite these facts, Romo critics, a distinction obviously including Jones and Garrett, were so tentative and/or regretted Romo’s re-insertion as starter, while (virtually) overwhelmed emotionally by the wins the
team was stacking up without Romo that they
forgot
or
disregarded
...the fact no NFL team has done what they pinned all their hopes and dreams upon a Prescott-led team would eventually accomplish. Certainly, there is always a first time of a different result happening in every imaginable situation despite the transparently apparent opposing odds that
should have smacked everyone watching 2016 unfolded squarely in the face. Romo scared so many people, including the only people that mattered, Jones and Garrett, that poorly weak rationalized justifications of injury and skewed singular past performance carried not only that year but into the present. C’est la vie.
sigh.
/rant