It has to be asked because it's definitely possible

[LittleBoyBlue]

Against the Eagles ( the first time ) Dak played poorly for 3 Qtrs then got hot in the 4th and pulled out the win.

You don't pull Dak if he struggles in the playoffs either. He is just as capable of getting hot at any time as Romo would be.

I would favor Tony more to get that done than Dak.

Next year. My thoughts on that probably change to trusting Dak more. He's got that in him too.

 

[AzorAhai]

Sorry, but if Dak is having another game like the 2nd Giants game, they need to go to Romo at the start of the 2nd half. Damn everything else. The next 10 years are the next 10 years and you worry about that later. You absolutely cannot sit idly by out of stubbornness or fear of how Dak would take it. As we've all been made painfully aware, legitimate SB opportunities are not easy to come by. You do what you have to to advance and it couldn't be simpler than that to me.

Of course hopefully Dak doesn't struggle and this topic never has to be a concern.

 

[Aven8]

I can't remember him doing that in a looong time.

Is it the hip, or JG you think?

 

[Stash]

Is it the hip, or JG you think?

I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth!

 

[Super_Kazuya]

No malicious disrespect to Garrett but he's no Bill Walsh.

And Dak is no Joe and Tony is no Steve, apparently...

Anyway this is all much about nothing, if the circumstances arrive where Dak is benched then I am pretty sure even the biggest Dak slobberer in the world will have been behind it happening five minutes earlier. These things are rarely controversial. Usually the QB in question is blowing the game.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

It's always the same thing. People waiting for the Cowboys to get blown out. It hasn't happened this year. If we lose the game will be close.

 

[DallasEast]

Against the Eagles ( the first time ) Dak played poorly for 3 Qtrs then got hot in the 4th and pulled out the win.

You don't pull Dak if he struggles in the playoffs either. He is just as capable of getting hot at any time as Romo would be.

Yep. That's essentially the risk the franchise took during the regular season. Don't run for the A/C thermostat if the kitchen suddenly gets red hot. All these very real and easily foreseen possibilities should have been discussed (or had better been discussed) on or before the day Romo was deemed healthy enough to return to his starting role.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

true. i wonder how far out of reach the game has to be, assuming he would make the change, to do it.

If you let it get "out of reach" then my thread question wasn't considered.

 

[Stash]

Sorry, but if Dak is having another game like the 2nd Giants game, they need to go to Romo at the start of the 2nd half. Damn everything else. The next 10 years are the next 10 years and you worry about that later. You absolutely cannot sit idly by out of stubbornness or fear of how Dak would take it. As we've all been made painfully aware, legitimate SB opportunities are not easy to come by. You do what you have to to advance and it couldn't be simpler than that to me.

Of course hopefully Dak doesn't struggle and this topic never has to be a concern.

Exactly. And I don't get the feeling that Dak would go in the tank if that happened anyway. It's just not his character. If he did, maybe he wasn't the guy you thought he was anyway.

 

[JoeKing]

My first thought to OP... shut up, that is not going to happen.

But then I got to thinking about it and just to indulge the thought, this is a do or die scenario, no tomorrow... Romo would be given a chance to save the day if Dak, god forbid had a bad day. And I wouldn't even say that would affect Daks starting status the following week if we advanced. Every player has a bad day... that has not been Dak's MO so moving forward I'd still consider him our starter until he shows that he consistently can not perform at that level.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

IMO, there is really no other reason to play Tony last week. The only good reason, IMO, to play him is to see what you have just in case you want to play him. Regardless, I think Tony's future is elsewhere. However, I can see it happening. if Dak struggles, I can see Garrett going to Tony. JMO

 

[canters]

Another what if scenario to get Romo in the garment.....did not see that one coming.

 

[Common Sense]

I think Romo is going to get sprinkled in regardless of how well Dak is playing.

This would be the smart thing to do. Create a few sub-packages with Romo as an added wrinkle. He can still do things Dak can't and it would be crazy not to lean on that in the playoffs. Then, you have the excuse to ride the "hot hand" in the event that Dak gets caught playing like a rookie without benching him, per se.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I think Dak stays in there no matter how big of a hole he could potentially have to crawl out of, UNLESS he gets injured & Romo HAS to come in.
If this is in fact "Dak's team", then he'd have to eat the loss, just as Romo would have to do if he were in there.

I think that's irresponsible.

Then you are making about one guy. Not the team.

You can still keep it "Dak's Team"... by looking out for team. Dak is THAT smart!

 

[Coy]

If they wait until 21-3, I'd just prefer they didn't do it at all.

This is exactly why I don't think it will happen, why would you do it if you are down 3 Td's in the 4th Q?? And I don't think Garrett has the guts to do it in a tight game even if Dak is strugling.

 

[DallasEast]

And Dak is no Joe and Tony is no Steve, apparently...

Anyway this is all much about nothing, if the circumstances arrive where Dak is benched then I am pretty sure even the biggest Dak slobberer in the world will have been behind it happening five minutes earlier. These things are rarely controversial. Usually the QB in question is blowing the game.

I'm not sure about the absence of controversy occurring but I meant something slightly different in my earlier post. What I was alluding to was that Walsh made a proper decision based on the circumstances. The circumstances involved his primary franchise quarterback (Montana), who was never permanently benched during the regular season for his backup future franchise quarterback (Young), while having a poor game in the playoffs. Walsh substituted Young for Montana to provide a spark and snatch victory out of a probable defeat to the Vikings.

For Walsh, the circumstances were not similar to what Garrett endorsed. Garrett followed suit with Romo's permanent benching during the regular season. In my opinion, the decision was shortsighted. Now, hypothetically, Garrett would bench Prescott for poor play in the playoff. I don't see it happening. I don't think it should happen. It's the potential house of cards Garrett and the front office built for themselves and if it collapses upon itself, so be it.

My only thing, concerning my early reply, is that Walsh wouldn't have put himself or the team in position to make the change from Prescott to Romo because I think Walsh would have immediately reinstated an incumbent-returning-from-injury Montana and sat the star backup Young during the regular season well-before the hypothetical playoff situation occurred in the first place. Unlike Walsh in 1987, Garrett's put himself in a catch-22 situation in 2016. I think he'll ride or die with Prescott no matter the playoff circumstances. And while I don't support it, I think he should do so for allowing the nonsense to ever manifest.

Hypocritical? Yes. I'm okay with the label. I'm not the coach, general manager, etc. anyway. In the end, I'm in the same boat with every other fan, lacking oars like everybody else.

EDIT: Wait a second. Am I remembering correctly? Didn't Young spell Montana for a few regular season games in '87 due to injury? I've just made myself sick thinking about that if true.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Another what if scenario to get Romo in the garment.....did not see that one coming.

Nope.

My scenario is pretty much a one off scenario,
For one game only. To advance to the next.
If it happened in next game i lean towards going down with Dak.

 

[DallasEast]

IMO, there is really no other reason to play Tony last week. The only good reason, IMO, to play him is to see what you have just in case you want to play him. Regardless, I think Tony's future is elsewhere. However, I can see it happening. if Dak struggles, I can see Garrett going to Tony. JMO

I said before the Eagles game (heck, before the LIONS game) that there was zero reason for Romo to ever play again for Dallas under any circumstance unless Prescott got hurt. Then Romo actually went out last Sunday and demonstrated to me that my opinion was right. It only matters to me but it's a small consolation personally.

 

[Nova]

Well as I keep having to remind people, Joe Montana in his prime was benched in a playoff game for poor play, mainly because a guy who would go on to win six passing titles and 2 MVPs was on the bench. It was not a permanent move (Joe would go on to help the 49ers collect two more Super Bowl wins) nor was it a statement. They just wanted to win that game and survive for another week and Joe just didn't have it that day.

That's not exactly the same thing, though.

That was going with the option for the future over the proven past-- essentially admitting an era was over.

 

[thunderpimp91]

Yes, you go to Romo at halftime if Dak is struggling. With that said though i don't expect that to be needed.

I think that's irresponsible.

Then you are making about one guy. Not the team.

You can still keep it "Dak's Team"... by looking out for team. Dak is THAT smart!

Bingo...I'm so tired of people worrying about it being "Daks team" or "Romos team". Its the Dallas Cowboys, not just a QB.

This time of year I could care less about anyones feelings. The Cowboys have an advantage no one else has (besides maybe NE) with the ability to win with their backup QB. Why not put all of the options on the table?

With that said I would be shocked if Dak had another performance as bad as against the Giants game. That was him at his absolute worst, and it wasn't all on him. Poor weather conditions, Dez was basically just a warm body on the field, etc. I think that game was a worst case scenario for this offense.