I'd like to see Tony get one series on Sunday regardless

[viman96]

And I'd like for it to be predetermined to be that first series of the 3rd quarter, so there's no hand-wringing about how Dak's playing. I'd like for it to be publicly stated, and that the rationale is we want to give him the benefit of some field time before we actually need him. His preseason was cut short. And if we need him at some point, how much better if he's not throwing his first regular season pass of the season.

But maybe that's just me.

First series of the 3rd qtr is a terrible time for the backup to have a predetermined series. This is not preseason. Either Tony starts or he is the designated backup.

 

[_sturt_]

Romo Is a vet. He doesn't need any time to warm up especially if he's going to be backup this year.

I seem to recall that same mantra last year.

Didn't work out so well, did it.

Now, granted, we likely were running him back out there before he was actually ready. I get that. But that might've been part of it, but I don't think it's all of it. Timing w/ receivers under real game conditions is a big deal. You don't just blow it off and hope for the best, imo. You prepare.

And Romo might be a back-up. But he might not be. That's the point.

This isn't the same as trying to get Mark Sanchez ready... it's just not. You wouldn't bother to get Sanchez ready b/c the evidence says you'd be spending valuable time prepping a empirically lesser QB. You risk too much in sending him in there by virtue of the drop off. That's not this. There is every likelihood that a healthy Romo goes in there and performs at least as well as Dak.

I get it, too, some might be scared that Tony would get in there and outperform Dak for one series, and it would just cause increasing cries for Dak to be replaced.

But if we're all about winning, then it's not about the drama.... decisions are made based on what is best for the cause of winning, not what is thought to best suppress drama.

 

[KJJ]

I don't want to see Tony on the field unless something happens to Dak. Him getting on the field even for one series while a game is still in the balance and Dak is playing well wouldn't make any sense and just add more to the QB controversy. We need to stay with ONE QB or we run the risk of dividing the locker room and disrupting the great chemistry this team has going. You have to decide on a leader and stay with them. This has been Dak's team all season and he's led us to this 7-1 record. Keep Romo on the sidelines until he's NEEDED.

 

[Section446]

I'm done with Romo, I pray he never plays another down for us.

 

[T-RO]

Not me bro. We know what we got with Romo. Let the kid play and keep his job..why put extra pressure and media scrutiny on him by letting Romo play a series.

There are some good reasons to get Romo playing time. Perhaps the biggest is this: If we want to trade Romo in the offseason...given his age and health concerns...teams are going to be much more interested if they can see how well he moves and how he can sling it.

His contract is untradeable unless he can really open eyes.

And if Dak's play were to surpassingly decline or he were to be hurt...you have given Romo a little base to build on.

 

[Vinnie2u]

There are some good reasons to get Romo playing time. Perhaps the biggest is this: If we want to trade Romo in the offseason...given his age and health concerns...teams are going to be much more interested if they can see how well he moves and how he can sling it.

And if Dak's play were to surpassingly decline or he were to be hurt...you have given Romo a little base to build on.

I don't think Jerry will trade Romo. Jerry if anything else loves His home grown players. And I don't think Tony wants to play for another team. Best case scenario is Romo retirement next year.

 

[Fletch]

Not me bro. We know what we got with Romo. Let the kid play and keep his job..why put extra pressure and media scrutiny on him by letting Romo play a series.

Agreed. I mean seriously? Give Romo one series in the third quarter? Why? We'd be the laughing stock of the NFL if that happened.

 

[T-RO]

I don't want to see Tony on the field unless something happens to Dak. Him getting on the field even for one series while a game is still in the balance and Dak is playing well wouldn't make any sense and just add more to the QB controversy. We need to stay with ONE QB or we run the risk of dividing the locker room and disrupting the great chemistry this team has going. You have to decide on a leader and stay with them. This has been Dak's team all season and he's led us to this 7-1 record. Keep Romo on the sidelines until he's NEEDED.

That depends on how its handled.

If I'm Jerry I pull Dak into my office and say, "You are our starting quarterback if you continue doing what you be doing. A bad throw, a bad series, a bad game isn't changing that. We need to explore some things with Tony in a game or two where it might look like we are replacing you or opening up a direct competiton. Not so. Not so. Just go keep balling and nothing changes. And tell your teammates: Don't worry."

If Dak somehow drives into a ditch and starts stinking it up then Jerry calls him back in and says, "You haven't played as well lately. You might get replaced if performance decline continues."

This should be a coaching decision but we all know better.

 

[T-RO]

Trading Romo could be a huge boon if we can do it.

Suppose because of his age/health/contract we only got a 4th round pick for him. Factor this also in: With the salary cap relief of getting out from under that contract we could take that money and sign an elite pass rusher or a top receiver.

I think teams will be leery if they can't see what Romo can do now...at his age...after these injuries. Showcasing him could be a difference-maker in trading him.

 

[JBell]

That one series would be so heavily scrutinized that it wouldn't be advantageous for anyone.

Romo does well for a series - "HE'S BACK. ROMO FOR STARTER"

Romo goes 3 and out - "LIKE I SAID ALL ALONG, TONY IS FINISHED"

 

[SDCowboy]

lol No thank you.

 

[_sturt_]

Every negative response continues to be about drama... or, now, "what will the neighbors say?".... hehe... wow...

This is about getting us best prepared to take this thing to a February game in Houston. We're blessed with an extremely rare situation in NFL history--one of the league's best QBs coming back from injury while a rookie asserts his place as one of the league's best QBs.

Think of it this way, if you dare. You would get any other Pro Bowl caliber position player returning from injury some playing time even if a rookie stepped in and asserted himself exceptionally well in his place while he was away.

Make decisions based on what best positions the team to win now and the rest of the season. Not on what you perceive people will SAY... drama. That's irrelevant.

 

[knightrider94]

I know this is something that would never happen... but it'd be awesome if we could somehow use both Dak and Tony regularly. I know all the people who think they're geniuses will say "ohh you can't do that... you have to give the reigns to just one guy" or "it has to be this guy's team!" blah blah blah. But seriously... our locker room seems to support both guys. So from a leadership standpoint it wouldn't be an issue. From an on-field standpoint, it'd be so difficult for the defense to game plan for. Having Dak as a duel threat and for play action. Have Tony come in for deep ball throws and shotgun formation. Switch them out every other series or maybe every two depending on the situation. I know, I know, it just can't be done. You gotta have one QB. But seems like it would be a good idea to me.

That didn't really work too well for Tom Landry, so I highly doubt it will work well for Jason Garrett.

 

[cowboys2233]

Not me bro. We know what we got with Romo. Let the kid play and keep his job..why put extra pressure and media scrutiny on him by letting Romo play a series.

If you want to just "let the kid play and keep his job," you clearly do NOT know what we have with Romo. I'm not sure why so many of you don't want what's best for America's Team. That seems very unpatriotic to me. LOL.

 

[dogunwo]

Not related...but i hate that saying. How does what someone has forgotten help the case for their qualifications?

Its an overstatement/cliché to indicate you couldn't possibly know as much as that person in the subject matter. Its pretty useless, and is just used to stop people from second guessing one's choices.

 

[KJJ]

That depends on how its handled.

If I'm Jerry I pull Dak into my office and say, "You are our starting quarterback if you continue doing what you be doing. A bad throw, a bad series, a bad game isn't changing that. We need to explore some things with Tony in a game or two where it might look like we are replacing you or opening up a direct competiton. Not so. Not so. Just go keep balling and nothing changes. And tell your teammates: Don't worry."

If Dak somehow drives into a ditch and starts stinking it up then Jerry calls him back in and says, "You haven't played as well lately. You might get replaced if performance decline continues."

This should be a coaching decision but we all know better.

I don't think anything needs to be said you just keep riding Dak until or if a change needs to be made. If he has a bad game, I think he should be allowed to bounce back from it because benching him then would be like putting the blame for a loss on him. If he continues to leak oil the following week, then you go back to Romo. If we go back to Romo when he's NEEDED they'll be no second guessing. The last thing Romo wants or needs is to replace Dak while he and the team are playing great. Romo would then be in a position of trying not to screw what we have going up and no player wants to be in that position. Put him in a position of playing hero when he's NEEDED not in a position of ending up being a goat when we're playing great without him.

 

[_sturt_]

That didn't really work too well for Tom Landry, so I highly doubt it will work well for Jason Garrett.

Yeah, it was tried with Morton and Staubach for a game, and then it's been tried multiple other times in NFL and college through the years... enough evidence that it's just not actually productive to the bottom line of winning games.

And that's the bottom line... what is actually productive to winning games. All the rest is peripheral. I would agree with DTown that this is not a locker room where you have to be concerned about who supports which guy. It's an issue for fans. I'm persuaded it's just not one for the players. They have confidence either way.

As they should.

 

[_sturt_]

I don't think anything needs to be said you just keep riding Dak until or if a change needs to be made. If he has a bad game, I think he should be allowed to bounce back from it because benching him then would be like putting the blame for a loss on him. If he continues to leak oil the following week, then you go back to Romo. If we go back to Romo when he's NEEDED they'll be no second guessing. The last thing Romo wants or needs is to replace Dak while he and the team are playing great. Romo would then be in a position of trying not to screw what we have going up and no player wants to be in that position. Put him in a position of playing hero when he's NEEDED not in a position of ending up being a goat when we're playing great without him.

Just making sure we're not edging off the original premise here.

This is NOT about re-inserting Romo as starter. It's not. Look back at the OP.

It's about getting him into a real game in recognition that he's had precious little of that for over a friggin year. There is value to being pro-active to, as someone else said, knock rust off. To get some real game timing with his receivers.

Too easily forgotten just how little he played last year and now practically zero even in preseason this year.

 

[T-RO]

Just making sure we're not edging off the original premise here.

This is NOT about re-inserting Romo as starter. It's not. Look back at the OP.

It's about getting him into a real game in recognition that he's had precious little of that for over a friggin year. There is value to being pro-active to, as someone else said, knock rust off. To get some real game timing with his receivers.

Too easily forgotten just how little he played last year and now practically zero even in preseason this year.

Exactly. Nobody's addressing the real point, the real context nor the palpable possible advantages.

 

[LandryFan]

Not related...but i hate that saying. How does what someone has forgotten help the case for their qualifications?

I assume this is directed at me...It doesn't help their qualifications, it just puts my lack of qualifications into proper perspective. Simply put, I'm not qualifed to insist that I know what they should do...I trust them to do the right thing. Of course, I can state my desire, but that doesn't really matter