Dave Moore on Romo/Garrett relationship

[Hardline]

This doesn't have anything with Xs and Os.
So I couldn't care less about this story.

Yes, I know I opened the thread but I still don't care.

 

[fgoodwin]

Does anyone have the online access to Dallas Morning News? I saw Moore's article referenced on how their relationship has deteriorated and was interested in reading what he wrote. Thanks

Here is the text of the article. Read it then draw your own conclusions. Commenting on anything else (as many seem surprisingly willing to do) is nothing more than speculation and rumor-mongering:

Rift between Romo and Garrett can be traced back to this slap at the Cowboys coach's authority

By David Moore , Staff Writer Contact David Mooreon TwitterDavidMooreDMN

Jason Garrett was at American Airlines Center this week as the Mavericks lost to the Golden State Warriors.

Tony Romo wasn't sitting next to him.

The relationship between the two has become a source of fascination for Cowboys fans. With Romo's fate in limbo, it's become evident he and Garrett haven't been sighted in public the way they have in previous offseasons.

Surprising? Not really. The split, delayed as the Cowboys seek a trade partner, remains inevitable. Human nature dictates that Romo and Garrett put some emotional distance between themselves before the quarterback is out the door.

But the distance between Romo and the Cowboys head coach began to grow well before the offseason was underway.

Romo and Garrett share a bond few can claim. Both have played quarterback in the NFL. Both possess an analytical eye for the position, a love of competition and an appreciation for sports that extends beyond football.

But it's a relationship born of their employment by the Cowboys. It's a friendship that's become frayed by circumstance the way it would in any workplace where one party reports to the other.

Romo knows intellectually that Garrett will always put the team over any individual. He would do the same in that position. That doesn't make it easier to stomach when it happens.

Since Romo moved into the Cowboys starting lineup in October 2006, he's presided over three division titles, landed four Pro Bowl appearances, played hurt and echoed Garrett's message in the locker room. All it took was nine strong weeks and an 8-1 start by rookie Dak Prescott to wipe that away.

You can vent about that to a co-worker or friend and he'll agree it's not fair. When that friend is the head coach, he can't offer the support you crave since he's the one who determines you don't get the job back even though you're healthy.

Five days before the Cowboys played Baltimore in late November, Romo went to Rich Dalrymple, the club's senior vice president of public relations, and said he wanted to speak publicly for the first time since suffering an L1 compression fracture in his back three months earlier. He read from a prepared statement that detailed his frustrations, pledged his support to his heir apparent and spoke of the need to elevate team over ego.

Romo's comments were universally applauded. But again, he went to Dalrymple, not Garrett. The Cowboys head coach was put in the position of praising a statement he had no idea his quarterback was going to give. The fact that Romo didn't run his comments by Garrett or inform him as a courtesy was a slap to his authority.

The concession speech was impressive and unusually reflective. Romo talked of being in a dark place and of feeling guilty that he let people down. In some ways it was too revealing. It can be argued that Romo's speech came across as if he had nothing else to offer to the team. It sounded as if the player who started 127 games -- Troy Aikman is the only quarterback to start more games in franchise history -- felt defeated that he found himself as a backup.

How could Garrett, who started only nine games in his NFL career, take it any other way?

Suddenly, the experience the two shared was no longer common ground. As a starter, Romo held a responsibility and pressure for years that Garrett never experienced on a day-to-day basis. His apparent depression over being the backup was a backhanded indictment of Garrett's playing career. By all accounts the relationship hasn't been the same since.

Garrett said at last month's scouting combine in Indianapolis that he hadn't spoken to Romo since the end of the season. He claimed that's not unusual and is typical of most players. It isn't typical of his relationship with Romo.

What Garrett didn't say was that he and Romo found themselves at the same social event on one or two occasions since the end of the season. The two were cordial, but cool, not saying much more than hello.

This narrative will soon fade into the background. Romo likely will be gone in a few days or weeks to end his playing career with another team. Garrett will continue to coach the Cowboys.

Chances are the two will move past their differences and resume their relationship down the road.

Now is not the time.

 

[fgoodwin]

Having the text before us, allow me to say this: If you think this sounds more like a soap opera script than something suitable for the sports pages, you'd be right.

Romo is gone every way but physically. Why is his relationship with his soon-to-be former coach even relevant anymore?

 

[tecolote]

Garrett would have been fired a long time ago if not for Romo. Now he gets to live off Dak for a while.

 

[Beast_from_East]

This is nothing new .. competitive players are never happy when they lose their starting position for any reason. Garrett has a job to do and as all coaches do, even Belichick, you put the team before any one player. If I were Romo, I would have been upset as well to lose a seemingly untouchable starting position prior to the season. That said, how do you think he got the job in the first place? It happened to him and one day it will happen to Prescott.

Didn't Bledsoe get benched by Parcells after throwing an INT in the endzone and then Romo entered the game and never lost the job?

Romo was not benched and replaced by Dak in the lineup due to poor play, Dak won the job due to injury. Bledsoe, to the best of my knowledge, was never injured when Romo replaced him in the game.

Seems like an apples to oranges comparison to me, Bledsoe lost his job due to performance while Romo lost his job due to injury. That is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Garrett would have been fired a long time ago if not for Romo. Now he gets to live off Dak for a while.

Kinda like a giant tick

 

[Beast_from_East]

If I was Romo, then id go up to Garrett and id bust him in the mouth.

He should walk up to Garrett and kick him in the nads for wasting his career.............I wouldn't blame Romo one bit either.

 

[Reality]

Didn't Bledsoe get benched by Parcells after throwing an INT in the endzone and then Romo entered the game and never lost the job?

Romo was not benched and replaced by Dak in the lineup due to poor play, Dak won the job due to injury. Bledsoe, to the best of my knowledge, was never injured when Romo replaced him in the game.

Seems like an apples to oranges comparison to me, Bledsoe lost his job due to performance while Romo lost his job due to injury. That is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

You really should read what I posted rather than assume it was a general statement. I didn't say they both lost their jobs for the same reason. What I said was:

If I were Romo, I would have been upset as well to lose a seemingly untouchable starting position prior to the season.

Prior to 2006, Bledsoe thought he would be the starter the entire 2006 season. Prior to 2016, Romo thought he would be the starter the entire 2016 season.

When the day comes that Dak loses the starting job hopefully many years from now, it will most likely be a situation where he and everyone else assumed he would have been starting that entire season.

How you like them "apples" for comparison?

 

[Pants]

the only relationship I would care about is the HC/back up QB relationship....other ones matter not to me

 

[haleyrules]

Garrett would have been fired a long time ago if not for Romo. Now he gets to live off Dak for a while.

Yep and the GM would have been sacked years ago if he wasn't the owner.

 

[haleyrules]

Didn't Bledsoe get benched by Parcells after throwing an INT in the endzone and then Romo entered the game and never lost the job?

Romo was not benched and replaced by Dak in the lineup due to poor play, Dak won the job due to injury. Bledsoe, to the best of my knowledge, was never injured when Romo replaced him in the game.

Seems like an apples to oranges comparison to me, Bledsoe lost his job due to performance while Romo lost his job due to injury. That is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

You could look at it another way also...Tony lost his job to the performance of Prescott. It is a very similiar concept. I was very surprised that Jerry didn't force Tony back in last season when he was supposedly healthy. The club seemed ready to move on for whatever reason.

 

[haleyrules]

Can't wait till both of them are gone from this organization. "Romo Friendly", "Garrett friendly"....We've spent a decade catering to the comforts of these two and have nothing to show for it. Not even a bromance.

Amen. Its long overdue.

 

[haleyrules]

we will be waiting a VERY long time for Garrett to be gone from this team. He just won COY. Thats at least a 5 year extension

lol. In Hockey Coach of the Year is the kiss of death!! Lets hope....

 

[haleyrules]

I think Jerry should bring Dr. Phil in for a group session.

lol. Or Judge Judy!!

 

[haleyrules]

Haha. There's a lot of posters here that I'd do the same to.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I am not a Garrett fan, but have made peace with him being here. I hold out hope i am wrong and this guy becomes somewhat close to Tom Landry. I also am holding out hope Jennifer Lawrence gives up Hollywood and seeks me out as her older man while lavishing her millions on me.

However, I find it interesting that both Murray, and now Romo were ditched by Garrett and soon will complete the transition of the latter being gone. No conspiracy theory, simply one of life's little conundrums.

 

[Coy]

If I were Romo I would be pissed at Garrett for not even giving me a chance to compete for my job after being a very good to great QB for this franchise this last 10 years so I get that their relationship isn't as great right now.
Let's be honest, the only reason Garrett has this job is because of Romo, w/o him Garrett would have won 4 games a year from 2010-2015 (as we saw in the 2015 season) and he would have been fired, saying that, I undesrstand it was a very difficult decision for Garrett, tough to change anything when youare 8-1.

FWIW I think everyone would agree (even Romo haters) that Romo has been much much better at his job for the Cowboys than Garrett and no, the 2016 COY does not change that.

We should just get this over with, let Romo walk and focus on 2017, the only downside is that Garrett bought a couple more years of being our mediocre HC because of Dak and Zeke.

 

[DFWJC]

He should walk up to Garrett and kick him in the nads for wasting his career.............I wouldn't blame Romo one bit either.

 

[Wizarus]

I can't blame Romo for being upset. He essentially got thrown under the bus after all of the crap he's covered up for Garrett. I'll never forget that Commanders game where Romo was yelling at him, and Garrett was looking completely clueless.

 

[DandyDon52]

When have we ever seen this type of concession speech before? Humble yes, necessary No!

Romo could have given this short and sweet without this " dark and gloomy place" for him. I thought he was gonna cry.

We didn't need him publicly in this format to announce he was in support of Dak. It was obvious he wasn't in support of the decision.

If he hadn't would the Romo Homers thought he should have been starting? Jerry, Stephen and Jason had all stated why they were going with Dak. That wasn't enough?

And I'm not a Romo hater. I thought we should have put him back in before the playoffs. He's definitely the better QB when healthy . I just tell it like I see it.

tony lost the popularity contest with the players too.
Dak wooed them all, and that is why tony had that party, to try and win back some players.
There was also the TW "moody qb" comment.
Dak was not judgemental, he didnt blame players or play favorites, he made it a point to be friendly to all the players.
He knows psychology, and he used it.

This was a factor in staying with dak, who even won over witten.
But bottom line was JG wanted to stay with dak, and didnt want tony back at all....imo.