Dak Prescott vs. Tony Romo

[Diehardblues]

I disagree with the bold, as you know from our previous conversations. In my opinion, Jones never thought that way but truly believed Prescott was good enough to win the Super Bowl. A number of people (if not many) shared the same euphoria as Jones that season. I do not believe Jones made the decision with Garrett thinking how the results would be looked upon by the football world.

I think it’s naive not to take into consideration how Jerry can be influenced by public opinion and what swayed him not going with Romo.

But there’s definitely an argument to be made Jerry was caught up in the euphoria of the Winning Wave himself. I’m not really denying that.

My suggestion is mostly based to those who couldn’t understand how Jerry didn’t go with Romo after he’d early said he would return. The fact Romo had never had more success in playoffs made it easier.

This particular perspective I’ve presented also supports why his decision was easier to go with Dak regardless what influenced the decision. In his mind he couldn’t lose even if Dak lost. That was the bigger point.

 

[G2]

With respect. I am a literal person. Romo missed a significant number of games. Depending on when a particular time frame is selected, it is correct that Romo missed 'many' or 'a lot' of games. Romo was injured many times. Romo was injured a lot of times. Romo was not injured 'all the time'.
True. Very true.
I agree that is how some or perhaps even many fans would feel in the way you described it. I do not disagree or deny those interpretations by others. I also have never liked any circumstances involving any player--high school, college and professional--getting injured for any length of games, especially any involving the quarterback of my favorite team.

However, my own thoughts on Romo and the 2016 season have never focused solely on him getting injured in preseason, which he was. They have never centered on the number of games he missed while he recuperated from his final sustained injury, which he did.

No. My thoughts on the matter, which usually prompt me to comment whenever threads are posted about the 2016 postseason, is that Romo was medically cleared to play at some point in or just before November of that season. He was the team's quarterback with veteran experience. Even though it is a disparaging thought for some fans, I will always support the logic behind a veteran quarterback having the better chance of leading any NFL to the Super Bowl over a rookie quarterback.

Personally (intentionally digressing for a moment), I have little-to-zero argument with Romo being on the roster for 2017 forward. In my opinion, Romo had read the writing on the wall witnessing the pushback from Garrett (and Jones too I believe) in him regaining the starting position. It is my belief Romo would have left anyway after that season ended. My own sole perspective is totally about what Romo could have done to help the team, if healthy, in the 2016 season only.
I completely understand. It bothered me as well.
True. Some of the reaction you describe was as true then as it is now. Some will never get over which quarterback was better, Prescott or Romo. I do not care for those pissing matches. Prescott had proven he could lead the offense effectively at an early stage of his career. I was grateful he performed well that season.

That said, my hangup about that season and how it ended was never about Prescott but what the decision makers, Jones and Garrett, chose to do with a realized opportunity to contend for Super Bowl LI on the line. But, admittedly, exaggerated talk about Romo's back late that season does bother me somewhat also.

Right, but with regard to running a team I totally understand staying with Prescott using hindsight. At the time Romo was cleared, I thought different. I think some fans are not able to see that Romo "could have" done better, but he also "could have" done worse. The QB wasn't our issue in the post season. If Romo is afforded the "He never had a good enough defense to win in the post season," then why assume it would be any different in 2016?
For me, it wasn't his injury. It was the near certainty that there would be another on it's way. He wasn't exactly a physical specimen. He was older.

 

[G2]

I think it’s naive not to take into consideration how Jerry can be influenced by public opinion and what swayed him not going with Romo.

What evidence is there to support this theory?

 

[Diehardblues]

What evidence is there to support this theory?

There’s been several occasions where’s he pleaded publicly to fans. Even to the point with emotion.

 

[G2]

There’s been several occasions where’s he pleaded publicly to fans. Even to the point with emotion.

For example.......?

 

[Diehardblues]

For example.......?

One of the most notable was after the CBS interview with Costas where he had admitted he’d of fired himself as GM with his recent record.

Jerry not long after that interview publicly addressed how passionate he was about winning. That he was a “ 4th qtr kinda of guy” choking back tears.

 

[DallasEast]

Right, but with regard to running a team I totally understand staying with Prescott using hindsight. At the time Romo was cleared, I thought different. I think some fans are not able to see that Romo "could have" done better, but he also "could have" done worse.

All of the bold is undeniably true. Take this season for example. No one can say exactly how each team will fare during the regular season, how teams qualifying for the postseason will perform and which Super Bowl team will do what is necessary to win.

Truthfully, I could not foresee how the team would perform in the 2016 playoffs. I am no fortune teller. Yet that is also the basis of my counter-argument for the past three years.

No one knows what will happen but everyone (should) knows what has happened in the league's past. Veteran quarterbacks have led teams to championship appearances and/or victories 100% of the time. Rookie quarterbacks have never accomplished the feat. Me? I will always side with the better odds.

The QB wasn't our issue in the post season. If Romo is afforded the "He never had a good enough defense to win in the post season," then why assume it would be any different in 2016?

What ifs are unpredictable that influence too many variables. One scenario may have involved the defense playing lights out and Romo throwing three crucial drive killing interceptions. That is a possibility. Another scenario could have involved Romo throwing five touchdowns but the one interception that won it for the Packers bounced off a receivers foot (it's happened before). There are tons of scenarios where the team comes out on top with Romo and loses with Romo. What ifs are like that.

For me, it wasn't his injury. It was the near certainty that there would be another on it's way. He wasn't exactly a physical specimen. He was older.

I will not get into the 'physical specimen' discussion concerning Romo's anatomical fitness. That is another subject with a lot of known and unknown variables that are not necessarily valued worthy for conversation. There is no denying he was older.

That said, and I am not directing what I say next at you, the chemistry argument is the second main conversational qualifier that is often used to eliminate Romo as a variable in 2016. That particular talking point swept throughout cowboyszone that season although it never held water based on the opinion of those who did not what Romo reinstated.

The teams' offense was clicking. The defense seemed to feed off their energy. Coaching decisions appeared successfully competent for the most part, game-in game-out. There were (at minimum) two other seasons before 2016 when those three factors were displayed also: 2007 and 2014. Romo was the quarterback at that time, so it had already been established a healthy Romo was not a cohesive detriment for those three factors to happen.

However, it was maintained that the team's successful run would implode if Romo returned to the starting lineup for any length of time. The imprecise theory implied Romo would do enough--for example throw untimely interceptions--to create losses instead of wins. Of course, it is highly likely Garrett would have pulled Romo if his performance dropped below what Prescott had established. The separate injury argument works also. If Romo got injured during his first tackle, he would get carted off benched himself and Prescott would return as starter. Yet the chemistry argument thumbs its nose at these very real possible outcomes and holds fast to the notion Romo's return would have broken the team's back (pun intended).

In my hindsight, I wish Jones and Garrett would not have allowed the weak chemistry defense to build up steam. It would have been better for both men to have thrown complete support behind Sanchez as backup and put Romo on permanent injury reserve no later than mid September. Sanchez would have been seen as a zero threat to neither Prescott nor the offense from day one. The chemistry allusion would have died well-before it blossomed like it did.

My apologies for the rambling. 2016 still punches me in the gut.

 

[G2]

All of the bold is undeniably true. Take this season for example. No one can say exactly how each team will fare during the regular season, how teams qualifying for the postseason will perform and which Super Bowl team will do what is necessary to win.

Truthfully, I could not foresee how the team would perform in the 2016 playoffs. I am no fortune teller. Yet that is also the basis of my counter-argument for the past three years.

No one knows what will happen but everyone (should) knows what has happened in the league's past. Veteran quarterbacks have led teams to championship appearances and/or victories 100% of the time. Rookie quarterbacks have never accomplished the feat. Me? I will always side with the better odds.
What ifs are unpredictable that influence too many variables. One scenario may have involved the defense playing lights out and Romo throwing three crucial drive killing interceptions. That is a possibility. Another scenario could have involved Romo throwing five touchdowns but the one interception that won it for the Packers bounced off a receivers foot (it's happened before). There are tons of scenarios where the team comes out on top with Romo and loses with Romo. What ifs are like that.
I will not get into the 'physical specimen' discussion concerning Romo's anatomical fitness. That is another subject with a lot of known and unknown variables that are not necessarily valued worthy for conversation. There is no denying he was older.

That said, and I am not directing what I say next at you, the chemistry argument is the second main conversational qualifier that is often used to eliminate Romo as a variable in 2016. That particular talking point swept throughout cowboyszone that season although it never held water based on the opinion of those who did not what Romo reinstated.

The teams' offense was clicking. The defense seemed to feed off their energy. Coaching decisions appeared successfully competent for the most part, game-in game-out. There were (at minimum) two other seasons before 2016 when those three factors were displayed also: 2007 and 2014. Romo was the quarterback at that time, so it had already been established a healthy Romo was not a cohesive detriment for those three factors to happen.

However, it was maintained that the team's successful run would implode if Romo returned to the starting lineup for any length of time. The imprecise theory implied Romo would do enough--for example throw untimely interceptions--to create losses instead of wins. Of course, it is highly likely Garrett would have pulled Romo if his performance dropped below what Prescott had established. The separate injury argument works also. If Romo got injured during his first tackle, he would get carted off benched himself and Prescott would return as starter. Yet the chemistry argument thumbs its nose at these very real possible outcomes and holds fast to the notion Romo's return would have broken the team's back (pun intended).

In my hindsight, I wish Jones and Garrett would not have allowed the weak chemistry defense to build up steam. It would have been better for both men to have thrown complete support behind Sanchez as backup and put Romo on permanent injury reserve no later than mid September. Sanchez would have been seen as a zero threat to neither Prescott nor the offense from day one. The chemistry allusion would have died well-before it blossomed like it did.

My apologies for the rambling. 2016 still punches me in the gut.

Like I said before, I was a huge fan of Romo and think he came up short for things in and out of his control. Things just never lined up. Multiple factors.
The biggest advantage Prescott has over Romo is that he's not the gun-slinging type, he's very conservative. Almost to a fault. As he matures that will probably change.

 

[DallasEast]

I think it’s naive not to take into consideration how Jerry can be influenced by public opinion and what swayed him not going with Romo.

Conversely, I think it is naïve believing a narcissist like Jones can be swayed into doing anything of real consequence but settling for something like a change in players as a sign that public opinion made Jones do something atypical. The man made himself general manager. And despite the option of allowing a different perspective overseeing football operations, even briefly, he has kept himself cemented as general manager.

I will be convinced public opinion sways Jerry Jones when he removes himself as general manager. It is not like tons of people both inside and outside cowboyszone have not been screaming for him to do just that for nearly three decades and he has not flinched a millimeter in his resolve.

 

[Diehardblues]

Conversely, I think it is naïve believing a narcissist like Jones can be swayed into doing anything of real consequence but settling for something like a change in players as a sign that public opinion made Jones do something atypical. The man made himself general manager. And despite the option of allowing a different perspective overseeing football operations, even briefly, he has kept himself cemented as general manager.

I will be convinced public opinion sways Jerry Jones when he removes himself as general manager. It is not like tons of people both inside and outside cowboyszone have not been screaming for him to do just that for nearly three decades and he has not flinched a millimeter in his resolve.

That’s true but he does respond to public scrutiny whether he actually fulfills our wishes or not.

Like I said. Jerry may have actually believed Dak was the better option at that time like so many did but the fact it was an easier decision publicly to take a chance losing with Dak rather than Romo .

And I believe played a role in the decision if he had wanted to go or had any second thoughts about going with Romo.

 

[Blackrain]

Romo was medically cleared to play great . How many times did that happen in the past and he went back before he should part of why his back was a mess in the first place .

How many players in the NFL have been Cleared to play and should not have been on the field . Its a Joke

Don't care what the doctors say about Romos condition when I see the guy self sacking and trying to continually protect himself while having to miss practice every Wed he is concerned about his back . Says to me its not what they say it is . When I see a guy like Dak charge head long in to the defense around the goal line that tells me hes pretty confident in his physical condition . Not so with Tony .

Tony was at the top of his game and had no championship. If health was not a consideration he would have never retired

 

[Blackrain]

Yep punched in the Gut is when you see your Starting QB running in a preseason game after getting over back surgery then lying in the fetal position fearing he is seriously injured

 

[Blackrain]

Right, but with regard to running a team I totally understand staying with Prescott using hindsight. At the time Romo was cleared, I thought different. I think some fans are not able to see that Romo "could have" done better, but he also "could have" done worse. The QB wasn't our issue in the post season. If Romo is afforded the "He never had a good enough defense to win in the post season," then why assume it would be any different in 2016?
For me, it wasn't his injury. It was the near certainty that there would be another on it's way. He wasn't exactly a physical specimen. He was older.

Tonys health was a dark cloud that hung over this team . Fans cringed when he got tackled and getting tackled is a part of the game that happens . We were on a great role and Tony may well have kept us on that roll until he got hurt again but he would have gotten hurt again .

The hit he took in Seattle was not a vicious hit by any means . Everyone who was not over the top emotionally invested in getting the last drop out of Tonys career could see this including Jerry and Garrett .

Tonys health was a time bomb that was feared to go off at the worst possible time so management defused it . We went with a guy in Dak that was playing at a very high level and showed his durability was not a factor . Management and the team had faith in Dak to be AVAILABLE to lead the team . That faith no longer existed with Tony

 

[G2]

Tonys health was a dark cloud that hung over this team . Fans cringed when he got tackled and getting tackled is a part of the game that happens . We were on a great role and Tony may well have kept us on that roll until he got hurt again but he would have gotten hurt again .

The hit he took in Seattle was not a vicious hit by any means . Everyone who was not over the top emotionally invested in getting the last drop out of Tonys career could see this including Jerry and Garrett .

Tonys health was a time bomb that was feared to go off at the worst possible time so management defused it . We went with a guy in Dak that was playing at a very high level and showed his durability was not a factor . Management and the team had faith in Dak to be AVAILABLE to lead the team . That faith no longer existed with Tony

Yeah, that was tough to watch in my opinion. He put himself out there on every play. It's unfortunate, but it's a violent sport.

 

[Blackrain]

Yeah, that was tough to watch in my opinion. He put himself out there on every play. It's unfortunate, but it's a violent sport.

All true brother the guy wrecked himself behind a bad Oline for years sucked it up and kept on keeping on . The writing was on the wall when he couldn't practice and we started drafting Oline at an alarming rate to make up for his physical decline along with finally establishing a power running game , but it was too late his body was done .

Mentally, arm and accuracy wise he was at the top of his game but physically teams knew he was vulnerable and schemed on this .

When he could no longer practice on Wed we should have used a 1st round draft choice on a QB and groomed him . We got crazy lucky to find Dak in the 4th round and people have the guts to complain about the guy because he wasn't a total turnkey QB .

Anyone with even the slightest bit of football sense knows our LACK OF PREPARATION for Tonys retirement should have put us at the bottom of the NFC east for a couple yrs.

We were lucky enough to get a guy in the 4th round and make the playoffs 2 out of 3 yrs people should be THANKFUL we have a bright future rather than dwelling on if we got the last drop out of Tonys career .