News: DMN: Laufenberg: Two reasons I'd want Tony Romo to get some game action before the playoffs

[T-RO]

Parcells basically said the same thing about him. I'll dig up the soundbite for ya..

Are these the Parcells comments you were looking for...ones made a few months back?

"You know, I wouldn't count this guy out just yet. I mean I think when you're in your mid-30s and you've been hurt a couple years a row, those whispers all start. People doubt. They do those things and that's just human nature. Also maybe his successor has arrived. We're not sure about that yet. But it looks like that may be the case.

With that in mind, you feel a little like an outsider as a player. Coaches still have to coach. They're sympathetic, but they have to coach who's there. And you're not there. So it's all those things, and it can kind of put you in a little bit of a dark place if you don't watch it.

But I don't underestimate this young man. He's got rare toughness, and I know he's going to make an effort to get better. Now what happens after that? He's got still conditioning after he rehabilitates his injury. He's still got conditioning time, and he's got to get back into the flow of football. That's a pretty big task at this time of year."

-Bill Parcells September 2016​

http://www.nj.com/sports/index.ssf/2016/09/bill_parcells_doesnt_think_cowboys_tony_romo_is_wa.html

 

[Blake]

Are these the Parcells comments you were looking for...ones made a few months back?

"You know, I wouldn't count this guy out just yet. I mean I think when you're in your mid-30s and you've been hurt a couple years a row, those whispers all start. People doubt. They do those things and that's just human nature. Also maybe his successor has arrived. We're not sure about that yet. But it looks like that may be the case.

With that in mind, you feel a little like an outsider as a player. Coaches still have to coach. They're sympathetic, but they have to coach who's there. And you're not there. So it's all those things, and it can kind of put you in a little bit of a dark place if you don't watch it.


But I don't underestimate this young man. He's got rare toughness, and I know he's going to make an effort to get better. Now what happens after that? He's got still conditioning after he rehabilitates his injury. He's still got conditioning time, and he's got to get back into the flow of football. That's a pretty big task at this time of year."

-Bill Parcells September 2016​

http://www.nj.com/sports/index.ssf/2016/09/bill_parcells_doesnt_think_cowboys_tony_romo_is_wa.html

Plenty of 95 pound weakling are tough, but they're still frail. Not discounting Romo's toughness. Toughness and durability aren't all that related. I think I'm tough. Did my time in the Marines and still try to run everyday, but guess,what, my knees have been giving me the finger as of late. Just how it goes.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Tony is as tough as they come. Sooner or later it all catches up to you. Tony gave it it his all for the Dallas Cowboys .

 

[JoeyBoy718]

I'd rather see Dak play a series, then Romo take over with the starters and Sanchez play after the starters sit. That way we don't expose Romo to unnecessary danger, but give him some game snaps to get back up to speed. It also allows Romo to show other teams that he's still got it for trade purposes.

If his health doesn't hold up in such a brief appearance, then all involved should realize that he needs to retire and move on to coaching or the broadcast booth.

I was thinking about this same thing. Do we really want to play Romo in 4-6 quarters this final two games behind our backup O-line against teams fighting for their playoff hopes? We want to show him off to other teams but it's useless if we get him killed. We should play him behind our starters so that he has success and stays alive. No sense ruining him before we try to trade him.

 

[gimmesix]

I was thinking about this same thing. Do we really want to play Romo in 4-6 quarters this final two games behind our backup O-line against teams fighting for their playoff hopes? We want to show him off to other teams but it's useless if we get him killed. We should play him behind our starters so that he has success and stays alive. No sense ruining him before we try to trade him.

Yes, I think the benefit for playing Dak very much is negligible, while there could be multiple benefits from giving Romo some time behind this line. Now, I'd probably be tempted to sit Elliott and start McFadden if the game doesn't matter and might stick Collins in there at guard if he's back, but other than that, the starters need to stay in to protect Romo.

It's too bad Green's hurt because I feel he also was playing well enough to have deserved some time with the starters before his latest injury.

 

[T-RO]

Plenty of 95 pound weakling are tough, but they're still frail. Not discounting Romo's toughness. Toughness and durability aren't all that related. I think I'm tough. Did my time in the Marines and still try to run everyday, but guess,what, my knees have been giving me the finger as of late. Just how it goes.

I'll take Parcells opinion and those on the inside over yours.

Romo repeatedly embarrassed 280 pound linemen that tried to crush him. Over and over and over again. And he would hold the ball right up until a hit like few quarterbacks.

Rash? Too competitive? Maybe.

Romo is 6'2--about the same height as Prescott-- and played far taller than all but a handful of quarterbacks.

Did he get older and more injury prone? Yup.

I've yet to see any guy tough enough to beat father time.

 

[Blake]

Romo repeatedly embarrassed 280 pound linemen that tried to crush him. .

Ofcourse he did, when he evaded them. That speaks nothing as to how his frame actually responded under duress when taking one of their hits, however. I will also take Parcell's opinion, and he told Tony straight to his face that "he was frail". That taken into account, Tony did a respectable job here in Dallas. But, there is another echelon of qb he perhaps never quite ascended to.

 

[cowboys2233]

Yes injuring his thumb and missing time is from genetics.

My recommendation for you is to go back and watch his career and see the insane amount of incredible hits he took, mostly to his back and how he got up and played through it almost every time.

Saying he was to small to play in the league and his genetics are part of the reason he got hurt about a guy who played for 13 seasons in the NFL is one of the most ignorant things I have read on here.

This is the kind of reasoning you're going to see from the Dak Pack time and time again. It's not easy to deal with this level of ignorance. I suggest you get used to it -- doesn't matter how many times you try to reason with them, they simply parrot the same **** they hear from the media over and over and over again. They have no critical thinking skills. They have no common sense. And they have no respect for Romo. At all.

 

[rpntex]

Folks, I don't get the angst over giving Tony Romo some much-needed reps in what would be a meaningless game. Do you really want to take a chance on playing a quarterback who has taken exactly 3 snaps in the previous 14 months in a "win or go home" scenario? I know, the odds of Prescott being injured are very slim, but it would be foolish to not be prepared for such an occurrence. Putting Romo in on a 14 month "cold" is an invitation to disaster. Give him at least a half in the Philadelphia game (if it is indeed meaningless) to knock the rust off, and to see what you have.

Is it possible that you need to activate Sanchez for the playoff run? I ask this because he hasn't been active the last three weeks. Knock on wood, but in the unfortunate event that Prescott does get injured, and Romo comes in and is rusty – as so many of you have predicted he will be – what then? You cannot bring Sanchez off the inactive list like the rule used to be. Those 46 roster spots on game day are precious… I would hate to have to activate a third quarterback at the expense of someone who might really be needed.

Seriously, what is the problem? I understand Dak getting all the reps he can. Nonetheless, I will never believe that one half of football, especially when things are all wrapped up, can be that beneficial to him – if beneficial at all. Just what is it that all of you fear? It can't be the "what if Romo gets injured" idea. Wouldn't you rather find out about his supposed fragility in a meaningless game, rather than in a "win or go home" game? I believe I know what the problem is, but you're not going to like my opinion. You're afraid that Romo will play very well, and you foresee another quarterback controversy. That, in my opinion, is just silly. There is no controversy leading into the playoffs. Dak is not in danger of losing his job, regardless of how well Romo might play.

It's time to put the team first. Stop with the "Romo this" and "Dak that" and make it "team first".

 

[T-RO]

Ofcourse he did, when he evaded them. That speaks nothing as to how his frame actually responded under duress when taking one of their hits, however. I will also take Parcell's opinion, and he told Tony straight to his face that "he was frail". That taken into account, Tony did a respectable job here in Dallas. But, there is another echelon of qb he perhaps never quite ascended to.

Parcells worked exactly like an old school military leader.

He referred toTerry Glenn as "she." He would challenge--seemingly demean--a lot of his players. And he did it most with players he wanted in his inner circle.

What did he say of Romo...not merely "tough" which would have been high praise enough. Bill said that among NFL players Romo had "rare toughness."

 

[ShiningStar]

How are Romo and Orton's situations similar?

we didnt give orton any play time during the season and lo and behold, and the game we had to beat the eagles, we lost when Orton threw the interception because he came in cold.

 

[windjc]

I think Dave is mostly out of touch with Garrett. Garrett ain't resting ****.

And Dave should know this, he just likes to ignore it.

 

[Blake]

Parcells worked exactly like an old school military leader.

He referred toTerry Glenn as "she." He would challenge--seemingly demean--a lot of his players. And he did it most with players he wanted in his inner circle.

What did he say of Romo...not merely "tough" which would have been high praise enough. Bill said that among NFL players Romo had "rare toughness."

Nice perspective. Don't doubt much of what you're saying regarding Parcells and his relationship with his players. He grinded Simms gears alot as well, yet respected the hell out of him; considered him as one of the underapreciated "greats". I still believe Romo is frail despite the apparent toughness. Regardless, I'm through arguing the issue for now. The back and forth of opinions gets to be redundant.

 

[nalam]

Babe Laufenberg, Dallas Cowboys radio color analyst and former NFL quarterback, recently answered some Cowboys questions following the team's 26-20 win over the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Here are some highlights:

Would you have kicked the field goal to go up 26-20 in the fourth, or gone for it on that fourth down in Tampa Bay territory?

I would have gone for it and effectively ended the game. This team is built to make that yard with their offensive line and Zeke Elliott. I did not think that giving the ball back to Tampa Bay with three minutes remaining and all three of their timeouts when a touchdown beats you was the percentage play.

It clearly worked out, but Jason Garrett would have had a lot of explaining to do if he Cowboys had lost 27-26. But the hypothetical world is not the world he lives in. So say hello to 12-2.

Continue reading...

I was shouting to TV the same thing, JG was playing win in the initial games and now has gone back to his old comfort zone , playing not to lose, I think in playoffs he need to go back to the winning mentality.

 

[DallasEast]

we didnt give orton any play time during the season and lo and behold, and the game we had to beat the eagles, we lost when Orton threw the interception because he came in cold.

Orton practiced all week with the starters before that game. I doubt actual game time would've made much difference with his contributions in the outcome.

 

[Deep_South]

No way I see Tony playing at home against the Lions if the Giants lose. Hypothetically, what happens if he throws for 300 yards and 3 touchdowns and wins the game? It's great for the Cowboys and the fans, but potentially a PR disaster for Jerry, Stephen, and Jason Garrett, because Tony is on his way out the door and everyone in the country will be talking about his performance on MNF. Ditto if he doesn't play against the Lions but does the same thing against the Eagles. If Dak and the Boys are then one and done in the playoffs, it calls the whole second half of the season into question. Did the Cowboys have their best QB on the bench? Why? Of course, if they go on to win the Super Bowl, or even get to the NFC Championship game, everything will be fine, IMO.

So, to avoid taking a chance on what at best would be a major distraction, I think the Cowboys' management will just let Dak play the next two games. (Playing Sanchez would be too difficult to explain.) They can't risk Tony playing like Tony 2014 and the world seeing it unless Dak is hurt and they have no choice. Best if he just rides the pine and fades away.

 

[ShiningStar]

Orton practiced all week with the starters before that game. I doubt actual game time would've made much difference with his contributions in the outcome.

you might doubt it, ill respect that, but his timing was off and not getting time on the field was due to it. Practice is not the same as being on the field. Dallass fault on not being able to handle the back up qb position.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

I was shouting to TV the same thing, JG was playing win in the initial games and now has gone back to his old comfort zone , playing not to lose, I think in playoffs he need to go back to the winning mentality.

I completly disagree with this. What Garrett did was the absoulte correct thing to do. Everyone assumes that we would have picked up the first down and ended the game. We might have, there is a good chance we do. But what if we don't? Then we give them the ball and the momemtum only needing a fg to tie the game. We kick it there, go up by 6 and force them do drive the field, and score a TD. Our D is very good in the red zone and we had dominated them in the 4th Q. It was the smart play to kick that FG. I think Garrett will be aggressive when he needs to be but he will not do stupid stuff just to be aggressive.

 

[ShiningStar]

I completly disagree with this. What Garrett did was the absoulte correct thing to do. Everyone assumes that we would have picked up the first down and ended the game. We might have, there is a good chance we do. But what if we don't? Then we give them the ball and the momemtum only needing a fg to tie the game. We kick it there, go up by 6 and force them do drive the field, and score a TD. Our D is very good in the red zone and we had dominated them in the 4th Q. It was the smart play to kick that FG. I think Garrett will be aggressive when he needs to be but he will not do stupid stuff just to be aggressive.

im usually not a Garrett supporter, but i cant argue this point either. The defense was playing great that night and it was a chance he could take.

 

[DandyDon52]

Called him frail. My exact word.


,

Tony needed someone like bill to stay on him about getting the ball out quicker, not doing that is what got him beat up
and some of the injurys.