An unsaid thought

[Sarge]

Romo never threw for 300 yards in a playoff game, never threw for 3 TDs in a playoff game, and we just saw Dak do both. He had a passer rating of like 103.

The narrative that Romo would have won this game needs to die. It's pure mythology.

 

[Kevinicus]

So how did Prescott lose the game smart ***?

Who said he did? The usual strawmen with you guys.

 

[Venger]

So how did Prescott lose the game smart ***?

How did he win it? If you post a mature and well-considered response in this thread, it will be your first...

 

[strollinruss]

Whether it would have changed anything today is a mute point. I think that Romo got the shaft. So does he. I hope we don't play him nex year in the playoffs. He'll beat us like a red headed step child. Karma is a *****.

 

[Gator88]

I think looking at Dallas' offense vs GB's defense, it can be argued that the offense didn't score as many points as they should have. Dak's tendency to start slow in the first half in some games really hurt Dallas' chances to keep it close and made it a lot more difficult for them to catch up. They managed to storm back so Dak and the defense deserves props for that, but they shouldnt have been in that situation.

 

[sean10mm]

How did he win it? If you post a mature and well-considered response in this thread, it will be your first...

By throwing for more yards and more TDs than Romo ever did in a postseason game? By throwing for more TDs and a higher passer rating than Rodgers and over 300 yards?

The Defense just had to do literally anything productive for 35 seconds and it goes into OT. If the D is anything better than a complete trash fire then Dak's production wins them the game walking away.

 

[Kevinicus]

By throwing for more yards and more TDs than Romo ever did in a postseason game? By throwing for more TDs and a higher passer rating than Rodgers and over 300 yards?

The Defense just had to do literally anything productive for 35 seconds and it goes into OT. If the D is anything better than a complete trash fire then Dak's production wins them the game walking away.

You realize the Cowboys lost, right? There is no possible answer to the question he posed except, "He didn't."

 

[Sydla]

Who proclaimed he did? The point of this thread was, in my belief, your playoff success rate would be higher with a veteran quarterback. Today's loss did nothing to dissuade that belief. It also did nothing to dissuade me from thinking this team has a bright future with Dak at QB.

But your rationale is faulty. For this game to prove your belief you can't win a SB with a rookie QB, Dak would have had to have played poorly and cost us the win. He didn't. In fact, he almost won the game with a furious comeback and beyond stellar play in the 4th Q of the game.

So, no, yesterday didn't prove you were right 6 weeks ago.

 

[sean10mm]

You realize the Cowboys lost, right? There is no possible answer to the question he posed except, "He didn't."

Only if you have an infant's view of football.

 

[Kevinicus]

But your rationale is faulty. For this game to prove your belief you can't win a SB with a rookie QB, Dak would have had to have played poorly and cost us the win. He didn't. In fact, he almost won the game with a furious comeback and beyond stellar play in the 4th Q of the game.

So, no, yesterday didn't prove you were right 6 weeks ago.

Where did you read the word, "prove?"

 

[Kevinicus]

Only if you have an infant's view of football.

Um...what? So, Dak and the Cowboys did win in some view? Does that mean they get to play next week?

 

[sean10mm]

He did everything you could reasonably ask a QB to do in order for you to win the game. But with no defense his 300 yard 3 TD 103 passer rating performance was wasted.

 

[DFWJC]

We'll never know if Dallas would have won with Romo. All theory.
My guess is that Green Bay selling out to the run and with their comically porous secondary, our oline, weapons, a Zeke run game, and Dallas playing at home (vs 20 degree Lambeau) ....I feel certain he would have had a monster game. maybe even 400+ yards...and if not, then Zeke would've had 200+.
All theory though.
Would it have been enough? Who knows.

I do know that Dak played one helluva game in his own right though.
The future is bright.
That's what we look at now...imo

 

[Sydla]

Where did you read the word, "prove?"

He's the one using the loss to support his belief that rookie QBs likely can't win a SB and that he was right 6 weeks ago when he wanted Romo to play.

The problem is the loss yesterday has nothing to do with Dak and certainly does not support his claim that maybe we should have started Romo 6 weeks ago.

 

[daveferr33]

He's the one using the loss to support his belief that rookie QBs likely can't win a SB and that he was right 6 weeks ago when he wanted Romo to play.

The problem is the loss yesterday has nothing to do with Dak and certainly does not support his claim that maybe we should have started Romo 6 weeks ago.

It does support his position. You might not find it convincing, and I don't know if I do either, but it certainly supports the position.

The loss also supports the position that going with Dak over Romo was a mistake. (again you might not be convinced) With a game that close, who knows if Romo doesn't provide the slight advantage needed to win. To wit:

We'll never know if Dallas would have won with Romo. All theory.
My guess is that Green Bay selling out to the run and with their comically porous secondary, our oline, weapons, a Zeke run game, and Dallas playing at home (vs 20 degree Lambeau) ....I feel certain he would have had a monster game. maybe even 400+ yards...and if not, then Zeke would've had 200+.
All theory though.
Would it have been enough? Who knows.

We just don't know and will never know. The team gambled that it could something no other team in NFL history has done: win a Super Bowl with a rookie qb. Their failure to do so supports the positions 1) that it is unlikely a rookie qb will win the super bowl and 2) that they may have made a mistake in not going with the veteran.

 

[sean10mm]

Their failure to do so supports the positions 1) that it is unlikely a rookie qb will win the super bowl and 2) that they may have made a mistake in not going with the veteran.

Using that logic, the history also says Romo will never take you to the Super Bowl, will never throw for 300+ yards or 3+ TDs in the postseason, and is twice as likely to lose you a postseason game as win it.

Those are FACTS, on equal standing with a rookie QB not winning a Super Bowl before.

History isn't destiny, and Dak produced more offense in his postseason debut than Romo EVER did in a postseason game.

 

[Kevinicus]

He's the one using the loss to support his belief that rookie QBs likely can't win a SB and that he was right 6 weeks ago when he wanted Romo to play.

The problem is the loss yesterday has nothing to do with Dak and certainly does not support his claim that maybe we should have started Romo 6 weeks ago.

To say it had "nothing" to do with him is not true. He played. He had some good plays, he had some great plays. He also had some bad plays and missed opportunities. Just like a lot of other guys on the team. He was a part of the loss. He was not "the reason" for the loss, but he was a part of it. He didn't use it to support his belief, he said the game didn't change his mind. There is a vast difference.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Who proclaimed he did? The point of this thread was, in my belief, your playoff success rate would be higher with a veteran quarterback. Today's loss did nothing to dissuade that belief. It also did nothing to dissuade me from thinking this team has a bright future with Dak at QB.



Romo may not have won this game, and having him start it wasn't a realistic option. But we do know that Dak lost this game. We just saw Dak do that.



It does have the merits of plausibility, whereas our loss is established fact.

Dude...you just talked out of both sides of your mouth.

The old aerosmith lyric comes to mind.

When you talk to me in circles, take your foot out of your mouth.

 

[Kevinicus]

Dude...you just talked out of both sides of your mouth.

The old aerosmith lyric comes to mind.

When you talk to me in circles, take your foot out of your mouth.

I "think" the first use was referring to the idea of Dak losing the game himself and being held solely responsible, like Romo usually is, and the 2nd use was referring to the fact that Dak lost the game as he is a part of the Cowboys who lost. I "think."

 

[Gator88]

Using that logic, the history also says Romo will never take you to the Super Bowl, will never throw for 300+ yards or 3+ TDs in the postseason, and is twice as likely to lose you a postseason game as win it.

Those are FACTS, on equal standing with a rookie QB not winning a Super Bowl before.

History isn't destiny, and Dak produced more offense in his postseason debut than Romo EVER did in a postseason game.

Hmm, I think Dallas scored more against the Eagles in their 2009 game with a much worse offensive supporting cast against a much better defense. All situations are not equal.