If you had it to do all over with Romo and Dak in 2016

[MarcusRock]

I know.
I never said Prescott could not have help the team beat Green Bay at home. In fact, I have repeatedly said Prescott was not the deciding factor in the game.

Again. What I have said in posts on this forum since late October 2016 is that no starting rookie quarterback has led their team to a Super Bowl appearance or win. If Dallas had beaten Green Bay, it is extremely likely the team would have lost the following NFC Conference championship game. The probability of a Prescott led team would have suffered the same fate as a New York Jets rookie Mark Sanchez quarterback led team would have been the zero also.
Yep. Veteran quarterbacks lose in the playoffs too. That is a century old truth.

A Romo-led team in 2016 may have ended up the exact same as the actual Prescott-led team. Maybe not. Variables are not defined until they play out. Same goes for the NFC Conference championship. Could have been a win or loss. The only definite outcome was that no postseason game will end in a tie. Ditto for the Super Bowl. For veteran quarterback led teams though. Not rookie quarterback led teams (0%).

Yeah I'm sorry but this is a lot of haze to try to explain away the fact that Dak already beat Green Bay the same season in a place Romo could not. I think "chances" were on Dak's side having done it already that year. I'm not ragging on Romo either but this whole "never been done before" thing is silly. No one had won 7 Super Bowls until Brady did it. If Micah was a full time pass rusher, he'd probably have more sacks than any rookie before him. I think you play it out rather than play scared. The kid was winning so you stick with him.

 

[SultanOfSix]

I was vocal during that time. Dumb, disrespectful decision.

Romo was the superior QB. He wasn’t allowed to compete due to that fact. If he got injured again you put in Dak. That was the rational decision. Not some stupid primarily anti-Cowboys media driven chemistry “argument” that was devoid of the an objective analysis as to why the team was winning. Hint: it wasn’t primarily due to Dak although he contributed to it.

All anti-Cowboys fans were ecstatic they had a rookie QB for the playoffs. The organization effectively killed their chance at a SB based on statistics alone. Unsurprising decision from a dumb organization with an egotistical owner and insecure coach. No way BB would’ve made the same decision.

 

[DallasEast]

The kid was winning so you stick with him.

Right. Euphoria. Jones and Garrett were in complete agreement.

 

[Swagger]

Go look it up. Remember Parcells built a Defense before he was ran off by Jerry Dumbo GM Jones.

True but Romo generally had bad defenses. Prescott has a couple of bad defenses but on the whole his defenses have been better than what Romo had on the whole.

 

[Swagger]

I was vocal during that time. Dumb, disrespectful decision.

Romo was the superior QB. He wasn’t allowed to compete due to that fact. If he got injured again you put in Dak. That was the rational decision. Not some stupid primarily anti-Cowboys media driven chemistry “argument” that was devoid of the an objective analysis as to why the team was winning. Hint: it wasn’t primarily due to Dak although he contributed to it.

All anti-Cowboys fans were ecstatic they had a rookie QB for the playoffs. The organization effectively killed their chance at a SB based on statistics alone. Unsurprising decision from a dumb organization with an egotistical owner and insecure coach. No way BB would’ve made the same decision.

And as much as some people won't like to admit it, Prescott would have greatly benefited from playing behind Romo like Mahomes did with Alex Smith and taken over at the right time.

 

[MarcusRock]

Right. Euphoria. Jones and Garrett were in complete agreement.

No. Dak beat Green Bay. In Green Bay. That same year.

Speaking of "chances" and "likely," are you going with the guy who was 1/1 against your opponent or 0/1?

 

[MarcusRock]

And as much as some people won't like to admit it, Prescott would have greatly benefited from playing behind Romo like Mahomes did with Alex Smith and taken over at the right time.

I'm sure that was the plan. But what, pray tell, happened that this was not the case? The reason Prescott was drafted became reality the very season Prescott was drafted.

 

[Swagger]

No. Dak beat Green Bay. In Green Bay. That same year.

Speaking of "chances" and "likely," are you going with the guy who was 1/1 against your opponent or 0/1?

Do you go with an All Pro quarterback or a rookie?
So Dak beat Green Bay all in his own...ok

 

[MarcusRock]

Do you go with an All Pro quarterback or a rookie?
So Dak beat Green Bay all in his own...ok

Yes. That's exactly what I said in 3-inch letters, lol. Your strawman needs more straw on the left leg.

 

[HungryLion]

Yeah I'm sorry but this is a lot of haze to try to explain away the fact that Dak already beat Green Bay the same season in a place Romo could not. I think "chances" were on Dak's side having done it already that year. I'm not ragging on Romo either but this whole "never been done before" thing is silly. No one had won 7 Super Bowls until Brady did it. If Micah was a full time pass rusher, he'd probably have more sacks than any rookie before him. I think you play it out rather than play scared. The kid was winning so you stick with him.

Good points.

I just think it’s silly to look back 6 years ago and wonder “what if” when nobody knows what happens if Romo plays.

I mean the defense still got spanked in that packers game. I don’t know what Romo does about that, unless he was going to line up at DE and put some pressure on Rodgers.

 

[Swagger]

Yeah I'm sorry but this is a lot of haze to try to explain away the fact that Dak already beat Green Bay the same season in a place Romo could not. I think "chances" were on Dak's side having done it already that year. I'm not ragging on Romo either but this whole "never been done before" thing is silly. No one had won 7 Super Bowls until Brady did it. If Micah was a full time pass rusher, he'd probably have more sacks than any rookie before him. I think you play it out rather than play scared. The kid was winning so you stick with him.

The offensive line was sensational with a stud running back in 2016. The offense was built on the back of that. People love to hammer Romo but the only season he had those type of tools was in 2014 when he played an integral role in beating a fierce Lions defensive front in the play offs and well he didn't miss the field goal, have the ball stripped towards the end zone or drop a ball that had already been caught inside the 5 yard line against the Packers. That loss doesn't annoy me too much as the defense was trash and there was next to no chance of actually winning the Superbowl that season. Conversely, the 2016 team was built to beat the Falcons at home (dominate time of possession) and once in the Superbowl then you never know although of course the Patriots would have been exceptionally difficult and the difference in coaching would have been embarrassing. But, despite the first half from the defense vs the Packers when the offense butchered drive after drive falling behind 21-3 from memory, the 2016 team had a better defense than 2014 and the team actually had a shot - that's why people are still hacked off about it.

 

[G2]

The offensive line was sensational with a stud running back in 2016. The offense was built on the back of that. People love to hammer Romo but the only season he had those type of tools was in 2014 when he played an integral role in beating a fierce Lions defensive front in the play offs and well he didn't miss the field goal, have the ball stripped towards the end zone or drop a ball that had already been caught inside the 5 yard line against the Packers. That loss doesn't annoy me too much as the defense was trash and there was next to no chance of actually winning the Superbowl that season. Conversely, the 2016 team was built to beat the Falcons at home (dominate time of possession) and once in the Superbowl then you never know although of course the Patriots would have been exceptionally difficult and the difference in coaching would have been embarrassing. But, despite the first half from the defense vs the Packers when the offense butchered drive after drive falling behind 21-3 from memory, the 2016 team had a better defense than 2014 and the team actually had a shot - that's why people are still hacked off about it.

Romo didn't have weapons around him? He had multiple HOFers to throw to. He had a RB who had the best season a RB EVER had in Dallas. Why is Romo afforded all of these excuses that other's are not?

 

[MarcusRock]

Good points.

I just think it’s silly to look back 6 years ago and wonder “what if” when nobody knows what happens if Romo plays.

I mean the defense still got spanked in that packers game. I don’t know what Romo does about that, unless he was going to line up at DE and put some pressure on Rodgers.

The defense let Romo down in 2014 too. The only time the defense played well was in the regular season game in 2016. They sure knew how to pick their spots. Lol.

 

[MarcusRock]

The offensive line was sensational with a stud running back in 2016.

Yeah that Cowboys all-time season rushing record from Murray in 2014 was such chopped liver. Lol. Romo had his chance. Stop it.

 

[irishline]

Maybe because he was playing against scrubs in a glorified pre-season game where the other team was trying to lose for draft position, perhaps? I mean, it could be that.

You mean the same scrubs that Dak played against that game and went 4/8 for 37 yards, with a 63.0 QBR, while only being able to muster a 49 yard field goal in two drives? Those scrubs? Yes, Dak played against them too.

I mean, honestly, to me they are basically interchangeable at the 6 year stage of their respective careers as their W-L record and playoff success is pretty much identical 85 games in. But the 2016 version of Romo had developed into what could have been a better shot in the playoffs. Of course that would mean his body could have handled it, which was pretty much a 50/50 proposition.

 

[DallasEast]

No. Dak beat Green Bay. In Green Bay. That same year.

You are repeating yourself to emphasize something already understood. It does not change my opinion.

Speaking of "chances" and "likely," are you going with the guy who was 1/1 against your opponent or 0/1?

You are repeating yourself to emphasize something already understood. It does not change my opinion.

 

[darthseinfeld]

Going back to 2016.

Even though Romo probably would have crumbled on the next sack he took, a part of me will always wonder what would have happened if Romo had been given a chance to gain his starting job back during the second half of the 2016 season.

Not saying that there was a chance in hell of that ever happening, but I do believe that if Romo had gotten the opportunity and if he could somehow have stayed healthy for the rest of the season, I do somehow believe he would have taken the Cowboys to the SB.

Something about that one series drive he had against the Eagles that made it look too easy. He looked like he was playing golf.

Knowing now that Dak was going to become just an above average QB, any regrets for not giving Romo one last shot?

Doesnt really matter, 2nd round has been as far as either QB has gotten. We would have found a way to lose against GB regardless

 

[Pantone282C]

Romo had a history of getting hurt repeatedly which made it more likely to happen to him.

And, seemingly, at the worst times.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Benched Romo because of superstition. Is that anyway to run and NFL football team?

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Dak no doubt. Romo was a perennial loser.

Apparently...so is Dak. "NO DOUBT".

So now what....replace Dak...like you replaced romo...is the only LOGICAL step.