Everyone laughed and called some of us "haters"

[Sydla]

Are 300 yds and 3 TDs some magic stats?

No but the notion Romo would have done better than Dak isn't factual. So this moronic attempt to slap oneself on the back that one was right in that Romo would have won this game is just that.

Moronic.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Dak has the ability to audible out of a playcall.

On 3rd and 2 he CHOSE to throw into a double covered dez rather than run the ball into a 6 man box. You know since i think we have a semi decent RB

One play.

 

[Sydla]

Tony doesnt throw into obvious trap coverage like that. He has 0.33 int's per game over this playoff career.

No offense but you are talking out of your butt now.

Prescott was not the reason we lost. Holy crap.

 

[Kevinicus]

No but the notion Romo would have done better than Dak isn't factual. So this moronic attempt to slap oneself on the back that one was right in that Romo would have won this game is just that.

Moronic.

Of course, it's not factual. It's an opinion.

What is factual is that people predicted the team would not succeed with Dak this year, and they were correct.

 

[Kevinicus]

No offense but you are talking out of your butt now.

Prescott was not the reason we lost. Holy crap.

I don't think I've seen a single person say that Prescott was the reason we lost. People have said Romo could/would have made the difference. That's not the same thing.

 

[Sydla]

I don't think I've seen a single person say that Prescott was the reason we lost. People have said Romo could/would have made the difference. That's not the same thing.

It's semantics.

The notion Prescott wasn't good enough and Romo would have definitely have been better is just guessing pure and simple.

Here's a reality. Romo could have actually done worse than Prescott too.

 

[Sydla]

Of course, it's not factual. It's an opinion.

What is factual is that people predicted the team would not succeed with Dak this year, and they were correct.

LOL.

So the team would have "succeeded" with Romo. And define succeed? SB win? So Tony Romo would have won the SB this year?

 

[Kevinicus]

It's semantics.

The notion Prescott wasn't good enough and Romo would have definitely have been better is just guessing pure and simple.

Here's a reality. Romo could have actually done worse than Prescott too.

Guessing? I wouldn't say that. We've seen a lot of Romo and know what kind of player he is and can make an informed opinion based on his ability, the team, and defense he would be playing. It's all opinion. Are people not allowed to express opinions now?

It's not semantics either. It's not a notion that Prescott wasn't good enough. He played well for the most part. It's not a knock on him at all. Romo might have played better and been the difference, that's all. Gregory may have been the difference if he was able to play. Other guys also may have made the difference.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Romo's career playoff QB rating is 93. And that was reliant upon his last playoff game against Green Bay where he threw for 4 TD's and had a 125 QB Rating.

The offense scored 31 points. That would be enough to be the 2nd leading scoring offense if we averaged that over a season. And it should be more than enough to win a ball game.

Sorry, Dak isn't the problem and whether you like it or not...Romo wasn't the solution.

To rag on the offense, Linehan, Dak and even Doug Free is completely misguided and putting the cart before the horse. If your defene cannot manage to slow down Aaron Rodgers with no Jordy Nelson and an hampered Ty Montgomery, then that is clearly the focal point of your problems.

I don't think we come anywhere near 13-3 with Romo at QB this season.





YR

 

[Sydla]

Guessing? I wouldn't say that. We've seen a lot of Romo and know what kind of player he is and can make an informed opinion based on his ability, the team, and defense he would be playing. It's all opinion. Are people not allowed to express opinions now?

It's not semantics either. It's not a notion that Prescott wasn't good enough. He played well for the most part. It's not a knock on him at all. Romo might have played better and been the difference, that's all.

And there is a pretty good chance he could have been worse too.

We've seen Romo in the postseason too and he's struggled as much as he's played well.

So yes, you are guessing just how well or poorly Romo would have played Sunday night.

 

[Kevinicus]

LOL.

So the team would have "succeeded" with Romo. And define succeed? SB win? So Tony Romo would have won the SB this year?

They may have (Yes SB). They may not have. Some people think it would have been more likely with him. Why is this so hard?

 

[Kevinicus]

Romo's career playoff QB rating is 93. And that was reliant upon his last playoff game against Green Bay where he threw for 4 TD's and had a 125 QB Rating.

The offense scored 31 points. That would be enough to be the 2nd leading scoring offense if we averaged that over a season. And it should be more than enough to win a ball game.

Sorry, Dak isn't the problem and whether you like it or not...Romo wasn't the solution.

To rag on the offense, Linehan, Dak and even Doug Free is completely misguided and putting the cart before the horse. If your defene cannot manage to slow down Aaron Rodgers with no Jordy Nelson and an hampered Ty Montgomery, then that is clearly the focal point of your problems.

I don't think we come anywhere near 13-3 with Romo at QB this season.


YR

Romo did not have 4 TDs vs GB.

I think 13-3+ is likely with Romo.

Did anyone say Dak was the problem?

 

[Kevinicus]

And there is a pretty good chance he could have been worse too.

We've seen Romo in the postseason too and he's struggled as much as he's played well.

So yes, you are guessing just how well or poorly Romo would have played Sunday night.

I would say based on Romo's history, it is far more likely he does very well than poorly. Of course every QB will do poorly at times.

 

[erod]

Dak played pretty well, but he essentially threw three brain-dead interceptions. Fortunately, the Packers dropped two of them.

Dallas had a huge disadvantage at quarterback, especially with as well as Rodgers played.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I think 13-3+ is likely with Romo.

Did anyone say Dak was the problem?

I think we go 11-5 at best with Romo. Romo's best season QBR was in 2014. That was the only season that he had a better (and slightly better) QBR than Dak did this season. Other than that, his highest QBR in a season was 68. QB's like Romo don't usually get better at this age.

Anybody claiming that we would have won with Romo is implying that Dak was part of the problem in us losing to the Packers.

It's ridiculous.




YR

 

[Gator88]

I find it fascinating that the same people that blame Romo for everything under the sun are absolving Dak of all blame when he was very far from perfect in the first 3 quarters. He was excellent in the 4th, but he was a part of getting down in the big hole they did, and similarly he was just a part of the team effort in them climbing back

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

That was one, not several. There were also missed opportunities on that one drive as well. The team had 13 points going into the 4th quarter, that's not all because of one penalty.

yes there were, but the problem with the argument is that it assumes Tony makes all the same good plays Dak did, and none of the bad plays. It also assumes that Tony wouldn't have made any additional bad plays. I loved Romo, and in fact, I still have a 9 jersey at home (my new Zeke one just arrived) but to say with Tony we definitely would have won is silly in my view.

 

[Ranching]

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/trade-tony-romo.271233/

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Plain experience would have been a huge difference maker.

I also fee like Tony has more control and the coaches trust to make significant changes on the field whereas dak doesnt seem to have that (also partly based on experience).

Does tony run THAT called play (audible or not), and throw THAT red zone interception there? 100% Not. He would have seen the way the secondary was lined up and changed to something else. Since it was in the red zone and bailey is so automatic, that was 3 points we literally threw away. That changes the end field goal to tying the game and not winning it.

Romo's experience maybe would have helped there, it's not like Romo doesn't throw ints, but Dak's mobility has helped all season, given that Romo has never advanced further then this, there just isn't a reason to assume he would have been the difference between winning and losing.

 

[Kevinicus]

I think we go 11-5 at best with Romo. Romo's best season QBR was in 2014. That was the only season that he had a better (and slightly better) QBR than Dak did this season. Other than that, his highest QBR in a season was 68. QB's like Romo don't usually get better at this age.

Anybody claiming that we would have won with Romo is implying that Dak was part of the problem in us losing to the Packers.

It's ridiculous.




YR

That's just not true (implying Dak was part of the problem). That's just faulty logic. Ridiculous is what you appear to suggest which is that no QB could have done better than Dak. If you say that is not what you are saying, then you must admit that suggesting a QB could have been better is not saying the other QB was the problem.

However, are you suggesting that Dak did not have struggles in this game and did not make any plays that negatively impacted the team?

Btw, the QBR is not a good stat. Never has been.