1. Read the latest Dallas Cowboys news ..

Just a What If. 2016

Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by TwoDeep3, Aug 16, 2019.

  1. baltcowboy

    baltcowboy Well-Known Member

    2,776 Messages
    2,726 Likes Received
    The offensive line and Zeke played in the preseason game against Seattle. Tony broke his back. The last two games he played in before the Philadelphia game he got hurt. Tony was physically done. Glad he retired a rich and healthy man.
     
  2. Super_Kazuya

    Super_Kazuya Well-Known Member

    7,057 Messages
    9,087 Likes Received
    How many false statements can one troll make? Talk about a fake fan...
     
    aikemirv, Vtwin and WillieBeamen like this.
  3. birdwells1

    birdwells1 Well-Known Member

    6,074 Messages
    3,383 Likes Received
    In Dallas in 2007 and in Green Bay in 2008.
     
  4. DallasEast

    DallasEast Cowboys 24/7/365 Moderator

    43,809 Messages
    27,546 Likes Received
    First, I wish to quote myself from two months prior to the 2016 playoffs:
    Thought I would emphasize what my thoughts are and have always been before anyone judges my comments as hindsight, instead of truthfully as foresight. ;)
    I believe there would have been various degrees of acceptance among players. Everyone is human. Undoubtedly, Prescott had become a new leader. Leaders are respected, so there would have been some resentment seeing Prescott benched for Romo.

    Romo was an old leader. Any resentment would have been tempered by the respect he had already earned.

    I think a better question focuses on functional instead of acceptance. Could the team have functioned just as well with a change at the position? In my opinion, the answer is yes. The team was still primarily composed of pre-2016 veterans who already were accustomed to playing with Romo. I doubt there would have been any measurable dysfunction if the change had occurred. Additionally, I am doubtful the rookies would have underperformed either.

    Any of my projected worries would have been directed at coaching instead of the roster. The coaches had employed a healthy blended of run and pass with Prescott running the offense. I would hope they would not have gotten too far away from that successful strategy with Romo behind center. They did a fair balancing job in 2014, so my concern would have likely been unfounded.
    I have played scenarios in my head using the Packers game as a template. There was the Paralyzed Romo factor that is often (understatement) argued. I could see Romo starting, getting hurt, Prescott resuming his previous role, and the team rallying from the emotional spark of Romo getting sidelined again. Perhaps the defensive front four would have been a touch more motivated in pressuring Rodgers into a single critical mistake that would have made the difference in the final score.

    The "winning one for The Gipper" emotional rally has helped many teams excel. I kind of believe it played somewhat of a factor behind the Eagles Super Bowl run after Wentz's injury.

    Another scenario had Romo making several key errors if the rest of the team did not perform as well as it actually did against the Packers. Most of his career shortcomings have been the result of his pressing to offset what he did not think his teammates could accomplish, which led to untimely interceptions and holding the ball way too long. I do not think Prescott could have helped rally the team if the coaches had waited too late before yanking Romo.

    The particular scenario I had hoped for was Romo playing solidly. In my opinion, games are often decided on the success or failure of one key drive by the offense OR the defense stymying the opponent. Well, the defense was porous versus Green Bay. If things had played out the same, the final outcome could have been the result of Romo throwing a critical pass that kept a first half or third quarter drive alive--something expected of a veteran quarterback.

    What ifs. As I have said many times, the end of the 2016 season still kicks me in the <expletive>. Thanks Jerry Jones. Thanks Jason Garrett.
     
    birdwells1 and TwoDeep3 like this.
  5. Super_Kazuya

    Super_Kazuya Well-Known Member

    7,057 Messages
    9,087 Likes Received
    It was too late to make the change. Way too late. They should have put him in as soon as he was healthy. There might have been some push back from some of the players, but they would have gotten over it... and Dak was a good soldier about the whole QB thing.
    But putting him in at the very end? I don’t think that there is a QB in league history who the coach would have done that for. Like, I don’t think that Bellichick would have put in Tom Brady if say Garoppolo had QB’ed them to a 13-3 record. The 49ers had a very similar situation with Joe Montana in ‘92 where he returned in the final regular season game for the 14-2 49ers... and yes, the 4 time Super Bowl winner and 2 time league MVP winner, did NOT go back in over Young. And that’s Joe Montana we’re talking about...
    So yes, Tony is obviously way better than Dak could ever dream of being, but asking him to do that and plus shoulder all of the blame if it didn’t work... and asking the team to play a completely different way than they had been playing for 16 games... I just can’t imagine a scenario where any coach does that.
     
    Fastpitch Dad, aikemirv and TwoDeep3 like this.
  6. McKDaddy

    McKDaddy Well-Known Member

    2,067 Messages
    1,746 Likes Received
    I don't think the "team" and coaching was good enough to beat both the Falcons (they were playing well) and the Patriots. However, there is no doubt in my mind that Tony gave the Cowboys a better chance.

    Kills me how people want to talk about disrespect but never want to acknowledge that going into the season Tony was THE FRANCHISE QB and had been for what 9 years. To not give him the opportunity to play (which he clearly wanted) in favor of a rookie going into the playoffs demonstrates this organizations inability to understand the situation & the clear challenges playoff football presents. In short, you don't do that to a guy who has been the face of the franchise. The young guy still has his career ahead of him. You could have done right by both as well as every other player on the team. Winning is the name of the game. You gotta do what gives you the best opportunity to win.

    Side note, it didn't have to be an absolute decision. You could have played both. Could have been working Tony in during last few games of regular season to get him sharp. Defenses didn't know Dak back then so rotating them in certain situations wouldn't have been given anything away. Would have given defenses something else to worry about. If Tony realized he couldn't hold up, fine but you let that decision work itself out.
     
    Fastpitch Dad and aikemirv like this.
  7. JustChip

    JustChip Well-Known Member

    2,842 Messages
    2,431 Likes Received
    Correct. They lost the playoff game because the defense couldn’t stop Aaron Rodgers and the Packers when it mattered. Had Tony played (and survived for the whole game), it would’ve simply been 2014 all over again.
     
    JoeKing and 408Cowboy like this.
  8. Future

    Future Intramural Legend

    24,068 Messages
    10,643 Likes Received
    It shouldn't have come to week 17. Tony should have been the starter the second he was cleared to play.
     
  9. OmerV

    OmerV Well-Known Member

    19,348 Messages
    15,981 Likes Received
    Had Dak played poorly in that Packer game, or had the team failed to score many points, I’m sure I would have some of these same thoughts. But that wasn’t the case. The failure was primarily on the defense.
     
    JustChip likes this.
  10. Kevinicus

    Kevinicus Well-Known Member

    16,949 Messages
    9,883 Likes Received
    This is not accurate. You were fooled by a still image from a certain angle. The video tells a completely different story. There was no choke hold, there was a big "olé" by the OL there and Irving was not really restricted by it at all. What did effect him was the guard who pancaked him from the side.
    There were plenty of missed calls in the game, but this wasn't one of them.
     
  11. CATCH17

    CATCH17 1st Round Pick

    51,072 Messages
    47,551 Likes Received
    Dallas had to go with Dak. The Dak and Zeke momentum was just too much at that time.

    Plus Garrett had never shown a pulse without Romo in the lineup so of course he was probably thrilled to prove he could win some games without Romo.

    When Romo would've been better then Dak is the following year when Dak and Linehan had a year of tendencies out there for the NFL to see and they didn't adjust.
     
  12. CouchCoach

    CouchCoach Well-Known Member

    23,500 Messages
    40,203 Likes Received
    1. The team has no choice in who the QB is and we don't know which they would have preferred except for Bryant and Witten.

    2. I imagine a lot of coaches in the league were thinking about that and what they would have done. Landry would have had Romo back in when he was ready but Johnson and Parcells, not so sure. It's not as much how the QB is playing as much as how the team is playing with the QB.

    Prescott didn't lose that GB playoff game and did a fine job of bringing them back. Maybe with Romo they don't get down by 18 but the D and DC weren't ready to play football. The GB game was not lost by the players, it was lost by Garrett and Marinelli.
     
    JustChip and TwoDeep3 like this.
  13. JustChip

    JustChip Well-Known Member

    2,842 Messages
    2,431 Likes Received
    . I believe Landry did it with Staubach for Morton for an NFCC game against Warshington. Sraubach didn’t play well and the result was a 26-3 drubbing.
     
  14. mrmojo

    mrmojo Well-Known Member

    6,261 Messages
    5,382 Likes Received
    Landry in 1972 didnt bring Roger back until the team was on dire straits against the Niners in the playoffs, his first great comeback. Landry gave Morton every opportunity to finish the season.

    The next week Roger started against the Redskins and the rust showed.
     
  15. JustChip

    JustChip Well-Known Member

    2,842 Messages
    2,431 Likes Received
    Yep, or they could’ve alternated plays or series Like Landry did since it worked sooooo well.
     
  16. 408Cowboy

    408Cowboy Well-Known Member

    4,739 Messages
    6,170 Likes Received
    What if = Didn't.

    Can't believe we're doing this again.
     
  17. Super_Kazuya

    Super_Kazuya Well-Known Member

    7,057 Messages
    9,087 Likes Received
    Didn’t he relieve Morton in the first playoff game? That’s a little different... I do believe Garrett would have gone to Romo if Dak stunk out the joint.
     
    JustChip likes this.
  18. chagus

    chagus Well-Known Member

    1,798 Messages
    1,743 Likes Received
    Absolutely... without a doubt... agree with this post. Of course, if Tony could've stayed healthy as well.... but if he could've... SB is the limit.
     
    Fastpitch Dad and WillieBeamen like this.
  19. WillieBeamen

    WillieBeamen BoysfanfromNY

    8,699 Messages
    23,735 Likes Received
    The Dak stans refuses to acknowledge that he had us down 21-3 at one point in that game.

    Overcoming an 18-point deficit to the GOAT front-runner is damn near impossible
     
  20. JustChip

    JustChip Well-Known Member

    2,842 Messages
    2,431 Likes Received
    I think you’re right. Was that the SF game that Staubach brought them back with 17 points in the last 5 minutes?

    No doubt Landry would’ve inserted Romo back in the moment he was cleared to play. He was a staunch believer in the starter didn’t lose his job due to injury.
     

Share This Page