Dak sure is lucky he isn't being given the "Romo" treatment

[Swagger]

Every drive matters "most".

Matt Ryan destroyed that same defense one week later. With a defense that later became known for coughing up the biggest lead in SB history.

It could also be argued that the mismanagement of the last Cowboy's scoring drive by Dak spiking the ball to stop the clock after the big gainer, instead of just lining the team up and running a play against the exhausted GB defense. Instead of handing the ball of to his all-pro RB or tossing a swing pass to him, behind the best line in the NFL, to take advantage of the flustered defense he wasted a down, allowed the defense to settle themselves, couldn't convert the TD, settled for a FG and left time for the game winning drive by GB.

I know you're going to blame the coach for that, but an experienced vet would likely have been handled differently in that situation and might have even just done the right thing on his own, exhibiting real leadership.

The points you highlight explain exactly why a vet All Pro QB should start over a rookie in a play off game. Was it the opening game in 2015 against the Giants when Romo gave a masterclass in milking the clock whilst orchastrating a game winning drive in the final minute or two?

 

[Hadenough]

All of the coaches, owners, and players are defending Dak. In 2016, ownership was being very coy about the situation. I understand 13-3 is an impressive stat, but telling Romo that he can't even compete for the starting job is absolutely ridiculous.

This organization has actually done a good job at given Dak what he needs to be successful: great wrs, great rb, a good to great offensive line throughout most of his tenure and now a top level defense.

I do not believe Cooper Rush is a better quarterback than Dak Prescott. However, I think this coaching staff seems to manage the game better with Cooper at the helm. My hope is when Dak comes back, he sees how lucky he is that he still has that job because his opportunities are thinning out.

As much as I liked Romo I really think the reason he didn't get his job back is he was having serious back issues. He didn't know when to hang it up and the front office made the decision for him. Sadly that year probably might of been a SB year for Romo. And that was the beginning of Prescott wasting everyone's effort.

 

[Swagger]

Dak kept pace with the GB offense also took the lead did he not? again 2014 defense played a much better game than the 2016 defense did Romo was asked to throw the ball 19 times..compared to Dak's 38 times...the 2016 offense was not a pass happy offense...and again ill say i would've started Romo, but once again dont think it makes the defense hold the lead.

Yet the 2016 was better than the 2014. Jeepers some of the trash that played in 2014 was beyond embarrassing. At least the 2016 defense had an All Pro in Sean Lee.

 

[Wizarus]

Romo's last two injuries were unrelated to his back issues of 2014. Collarbone break is, well, a collarbone break. His injury in 2016 was a simple pressure break - bent with pressure from another player falling on top of him.

He was fine at the end of 2016.

Its revisionary history. At the time everyone knew he didn't lose his job due to injury. Garrett made it pretty clear he wanted Dak.

 

[CowboyFrog]

Yet the 2016 was better than the 2014. Jeepers some of the trash that played in 2014 was beyond embarrassing. At least the 2016 defense had an All Pro in Sean Lee.

During the season sure and i dont think either was good...better D and i think Romo Wins in 2014 and Dak wins in 2016....to be honest thats been our problem for a long time..this year we are seeing a good defensethat does not have a huge holes being covered by the offense.

 

[Vtwin]

Dak kept pace with the GB offense also took the lead did he not? again 2014 defense played a much better game than the 2016 defense did Romo was asked to throw the ball 19 times..compared to Dak's 38 times...the 2016 offense was not a pass happy offense...and again ill say i would've started Romo, but once again dont think it makes the defense hold the lead.

Here is where you are missing the nuances.

He did not. The Cowboy's fell behind 21-3. Go back and review the drives that occurred during that stretch. When the offense puts together a drive, it uses up time, keeps the opposing offense off the field limiting their opportunity to score and protects the defense. That's how the 2014 game unfolded.

The 2016 offense was certainly not a pass happy offense, until it was forced into being one by having to come from behind because they dug the team into a hole by not sustaining drives, using clock and adding to the score. Instead of 21-3 at the half it might have been 14-10 with just one sustained drive leading to a TD. Just one drive can make a difference, not only in the score but in the way the game unfolds from there.

With the exception of QB, the 2016 offense was better than the 2014 offense and the GB defense was worse than the defense faced by the 2014 team. The reasoning for starting the better and more experienced QB in that situation is glaring.

The one reason I could accept for starting the rookie is if management had given up hope on winning the SB that season and decided to give the rookie the experience which might come in handy down the road. That's just an example of me trying to see all alternatives, I don't believe it happened that way. It was painful even typing that out.



The details matter.

 

[Swagger]

For those claiming Romo would have definitely got injured had he been brought back...that's an assertion not a fact. Even if he did get injured then so what, Prescott comes back in after filling in like a trooper during the regular season. There's no issue.

I completely disagree with those claiming bringing back Romo would have created a mutiny - Romo had built up more than enough credit in the bank over the years and was an All Pro QB who at that time was seeing the field and processing his reads as though he was in the matrix. His previous two play off games in 2014 gave him an average QBR of what circa 130? If players wouldn't want a QB like that under centre then they are quite simply braindead.

It had nothing to do with hating Prescott etc but that some posters do not realise how good Romo was as a QB at that point in his career. Some people seem to genuinely believe Tony Romo was a Brian Hoyer, Blake Bortles or Matt Schaub type of QB! He was an elite QB at that point in his career - how many other quarterbacks at that time would have gone to Seattle and taken down the legion of boom overcoming a muffed punt and a TD gifted to the opposition from a blocked punt!?

 

[Swagger]

During the season sure and i dont think either was good...better D and i think Romo Wins in 2014 and Dak wins in 2016....to be honest thats been our problem for a long time..this year we are seeing a good defensethat does not have a huge holes being covered by the offense.

Agree with that. Although I genuinely think the Cowboys win a shootout in 2016 with Romo! Imagine if we had this defense in 2014 and/or 2016

 

[Vtwin]

The points you highlight explain exactly why a vet All Pro QB should start over a rookie in a play off game. Was it the opening game in 2015 against the Giants when Romo gave a masterclass in milking the clock whilst orchastrating a game winning drive in the final minute or two?

I can't recall what season it was but , yea. If I remember right it was a shootout ending 34-31? The last team with the ball was going to win.

You almost can't expect a rook to have that kind of presence in the biggest game of his life, to date.

 

[Motorola]

As much as I liked Romo I really think the reason he didn't get his job back is he was having serious back issues. He didn't know when to hang it up and the front office made the decision for him. Sadly that year probably might of been a SB year for Romo. And that was the beginning of Prescott wasting everyone's effort.

Its revisionary history. At the time everyone knew he didn't lose his job due to injury. Garrett made it pretty clear he wanted Dak.

During the season sure and i dont think either was good...better D and i think Romo Wins in 2014 and Dak wins in 2016....to be honest thats been our problem for a long time..this year we are seeing a good defensethat does not have a huge holes being covered by the offense.

Here is where you are missing the nuances.

He did not. The Cowboy's fell behind 21-3. Go back and review the drives that occurred during that stretch. When the offense puts together a drive, it uses up time, keeps the opposing offense off the field limiting their opportunity to score and protects the defense. That's how the 2014 game unfolded.

The 2016 offense was certainly not a pass happy offense, until it was forced into being one by having to come from behind because they dug the team into a hole by not sustaining drives, using clock and adding to the score. Instead of 21-3 at the half it might have been 14-10 with just one sustained drive leading to a TD. Just one drive can make a difference, not only in the score but in the way the game unfolds from there.

With the exception of QB, the 2016 offense was better than the 2014 offense and the GB defense was worse than the defense faced by the 2014 team. The reasoning for starting the better and more experienced QB in that situation is glaring.

The one reason I could accept for starting the rookie is if management had given up hope on winning the SB that season and decided to give the rookie the experience which might come in handy down the road. That's just an example of me trying to see all alternatives, I don't believe it happened that way. It was painful even typing that out.

The details matter.

For those claiming Romo would have definitely got injured had he been brought back...that's an assertion not a fact. Even if he did get injured then so what, Prescott comes back in after filling in like a trooper during the regular season. There's no issue.

I completely disagree with those claiming bringing back Romo would have created a mutiny - Romo had built up more than enough credit in the bank over the years and was an All Pro QB who at that time was seeing the field and processing his reads as though he was in the matrix. His previous two play off games in 2014 gave him an average QBR of what circa 130? If players wouldn't want a QB like that under centre then they are quite simply braindead.

It had nothing to do with hating Prescott etc but that some posters do not realise how good Romo was as a QB at that point in his career. Some people seem to genuinely believe Tony Romo was a Brian Hoyer, Blake Bortles or Matt Schaub type of QB! He was an elite QB at that point in his career - how many other quarterbacks at that time would have gone to Seattle and taken down the legion of boom overcoming a muffed punt and a TD gifted to the opposition from a blocked punt!?

The 2016 season will be dabated among Cowboys fans for a long time.

 

[mattjames2010]

Who says Prescott would've broke? again your guessing it would've been diferent when in fact it was not the QB play that lost the game...thats what I'm saying before the game i would've started Romo after watching i dont think it would've changed anything...He was there 2 years earlier with a very similar team..and the defense once again could not stop A rod.

I said IF he broke, learn to read rather than seething. I am going by patterns in the NFL - you know, longstanding ones. Rookies don't win Super Bowls. Rookies most of the time do not perform well in the playoffs.

None of this is hard to grasp, which part of is are you struggling with and I'll try to dumb it down even further for you. Maybe I'll get the crayons out.

 

[OmerV]

I said IF he broke, learn to read rather than seething. I am going by patterns in the NFL - you know, longstanding ones. Rookies don't win Super Bowls. Rookies most of the time do not perform well in the playoffs.

None of this is hard to grasp, which part of is are you struggling with and I'll try to dumb it down even further for you. Maybe I'll get the crayons out.

Of course the reality is the best QB's coming out of college are usually drafted high and end up on bad teams. Being a bad team is generally how a team has a high enough draft pick to get that QB to begin with, and has a lot to do with why they either don't make the playoffs or don't do well in the playoffs. Accordingly, the lack of success with rookie QB's can be as much about the overall team as it is with the QB being a rookie.

 

[mattjames2010]

Of course the reality is the best QB's coming out of college are usually drafted high and end up on bad teams. Being a bad team is generally how a team has a high enough draft pick to get that QB to begin with, and has a lot to do with why they either don't make the playoffs or don't do well in the playoffs. Accordingly, the lack of success with rookie QB's can be as much about the overall team as it is with the QB being a rookie.

Rookies have made playoffs and failed to win. Rookies have also been on good teams and played poorly.

The argument being "Rookies are usually on bad teams" doesn't work here - because we know rookies HAVE been on good teams before and we know rookies HAVE made the playoffs before and WE KNOW rookies have no won a Super Bowl. But let's take this all away, because you'll still end up looking stupid: If you have a capable veteran QB with a history of playing at a high level that is healthy and ready to start or you want an inexperienced rookie who has never been in a high pressure NFL playoff game before....who are you going to choose?

But I'll end it with this, for like the 15th time in this thread: A young important player on that team in 2016 outright said the nerves and the lights got to them in that game. Thus rounding out my argument that they needed an leader with experience in that game, and they didn't have it. It's why early on in the GB game was filled with mental errors on the field and why near the end it also happened on offense.

Who is up next?

 

[Romo_To_Dez]

I would've started Romo......and it was 21- 13 at half..we ran the ball for over 130 yards on 27 carries..and for sure had we scored on every drive it wouold've made the game easier..but unless you change the rules A-rod would get the ball back after a score in which our defense didnt stop him much at all. so i get what shorting the game does BUT unless we would've actual stopped the GB offense after said drives for scores how does that change the fact we had the lead at the end of the game and did not stop them? again if we were winning 21 to 10 would that not mean the defense was getting stops? I agree if Romo started AND the defens got stops we would've won.

You have a point, because even if Romo were able to keep up with Rodgers and the Green Bay offense all game long, in matching them for TD for TD all the way down to the 4th quarter. Who is to say that the defense would have stopped Rodgers? For the us to have advanced to the NFC Championship game or Super Bowl in 2016 with Romo, the defense would have had to be more reliable in stopping opposing offenses late in the 4th quarter. Unless some think that offense with Romo, would have been able to build up double digits leads all throughout the 2016 playoffs, to the point where the defense would not have needed to be relied on to make 4th quarter stops in order to give the Cowboys a chance to win the game.

Even if the Dez catch was ruled a TD in 2014. The defense would still have been in the same spot in needing to stop Rodgers to give the Cowboys a chance to advance.

 

[CowboyFrog]

You have a point, because even if Romo were able to keep up with Rodgers and the Green Bay offense all game long, in matching them for TD for TD all the way down to the 4th quarter. Who is to say that the defense would have stopped Rodgers? For the us to have advanced to the NFC Championship game or Super Bowl in 2016 with Romo, the defense would have had to be more reliable in stopping opposing offenses late in the 4th quarter. Unless some think that offense with Romo, would have been able to build up double digits leads all throughout the 2016 playoffs, to the point where the defense would have needed to be relied on to make 4th quarter stops in order to give the Cowboys a chance to win the game.

Even if the Dez catch as ruled a TD in 2014. The defense would still have been in the same spot in needing to stop Rodgers to give the Cowboys a chance to advance.

Yup..

 

[xwalker]

Romo's last two injuries were unrelated to his back issues of 2014. Collarbone break is, well, a collarbone break. His injury in 2016 was a simple pressure break - bent with pressure from another player falling on top of him.

He was fine at the end of 2016.

Tyron Smith played 100% of the snaps in the playoff game this past January.
- Despite that, the probably of him being injured in 2022 was high.
- Same with Romo back then.

 

[Coy]

Here is where you are missing the nuances.

He did not. The Cowboy's fell behind 21-3. Go back and review the drives that occurred during that stretch. When the offense puts together a drive, it uses up time, keeps the opposing offense off the field limiting their opportunity to score and protects the defense. That's how the 2014 game unfolded.

The 2016 offense was certainly not a pass happy offense, until it was forced into being one by having to come from behind because they dug the team into a hole by not sustaining drives, using clock and adding to the score. Instead of 21-3 at the half it might have been 14-10 with just one sustained drive leading to a TD. Just one drive can make a difference, not only in the score but in the way the game unfolds from there.

With the exception of QB, the 2016 offense was better than the 2014 offense and the GB defense was worse than the defense faced by the 2014 team. The reasoning for starting the better and more experienced QB in that situation is glaring.

The one reason I could accept for starting the rookie is if management had given up hope on winning the SB that season and decided to give the rookie the experience which might come in handy down the road. That's just an example of me trying to see all alternatives, I don't believe it happened that way. It was painful even typing that out.



The details matter.

Good post, Dallas had just 13 points entering the 4th quarter against one of the worst defenses in the NFL.
The 4th quarter was a bunch of prevent defense for the Packers, that usually happens with Dak stats, they seem great but details and context matters.
We lost that game before the 4th quarter started.

 

[OmerV]

Rookies have made playoffs and failed to win. Rookies have also been on good teams and played poorly.

The argument being "Rookies are usually on bad teams" doesn't work here - because we know rookies HAVE been on good teams before and we know rookies HAVE made the playoffs before and WE KNOW rookies have no won a Super Bowl. But let's take this all away, because you'll still end up looking stupid: If you have a capable veteran QB with a history of playing at a high level that is healthy and ready to start or you want an inexperienced rookie who has never been in a high pressure NFL playoff game before....who are you going to choose?

But I'll end it with this, for like the 15th time in this thread: A young important player on that team in 2016 outright said the nerves and the lights got to them in that game. Thus rounding out my argument that they needed an leader with experience in that game, and they didn't have it. It's why early on in the GB game was filled with mental errors on the field and why near the end it also happened on offense.

Who is up next?

I didn't say it never has happened that a rookie QB made the playoffs

I said much of the time the better QB's come into the NFL on bad teams and don't have the chance. It could also be added that some start off a sitting behind a veteran as rookies.

Look at the situations some of the greatest QB's in history stepped into as rookies ...

Peyton Manning started as a rookie on a team that was 3-13.
Elway started with a 2-7 team from the previous strike shortened season.
Montana was a rookie with a team that was 2-14 the previous season.
Rogers had to sit on the bench waiting for Favre to retire.
Stafford came into the Lions who had been 0-16 the year before
Brees came to a team that had been 1-15
Brady sat behind Bledsoe his rookie season

**** So what if those guys had started off as rookies under different circumstances ...?


ALSO CONSIDER THIS:

Every year there are maybe 2-4 new rookie starters in the league. That means there are 28-30 teams with veteran starters. So the odds are heavily stacked that a veteran QB will win even aside from the fact most of those rookies will be on bad teams

 

[GINeric]

It’s been 6 years.

Yes it has been 6 years, but what about it?? Is it that he hasn't been a part of a superbowl TEAM in 6 years??

Or is it that the TEAM he plays on hasn't had much success in the playoffs within these 6 years??

I ask, because I can list a few quarterbacks who you consider better than Dak that haven't had any superbowl wins or one playoff win in their first 6 years.... just like Dak.

 

[G2]

Jesus Christ this place is insane