Just a What If. 2016

[erod]

The first game Romo tried to come back from in 2015, he got hurt again. The first preseason game he tried to play in 2016, he got hurt again. Romo was done for; he couldn't even finish an NFL game at that point.

Perhaps, but what would have been the damage? Dak just steps in and you move on.

Romo was just an infinitely better QB when healthy, so you have to take that chance in that situation.

 

[MarcusRock]

Dak wasn't the reason the Cowboys couldn't get past the Packers, it was the defense.

Although I will say I think the PI call (when Heath got a pick) was bogus. It was an uncatchable ball IMO.
Refs had a really bad game.

Not the case. You can't dang near tear a receiver's shoulder pads off as he's running a route. It wasn't uncatchable because Montgomery would have been at his spot had he not been hindered and also not given up on the route to complain about the penalty.

 

[DallasEast]

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.

I sort of agree but not about any respect argument. It would not matter to me if Jerry Jones and Jason Garrett had zero respect for Romo either when he was medically cleared to return or when the playoff game arrived. What only matters to me is the logical choice both men had at either time. Should Jones and Garrett had:

A. started the veteran quarterback and increase the probability of a successful playoff run?

or

B. stayed with the rookie quarterback and decrease the probability to almost irrefutably 0%?

I mean seriously. Where is the logic?

 

[beware_d-ware]

Perhaps, but what would have been the damage? Dak just steps in and you move on.

Romo was just an infinitely better QB when healthy, so you have to take that chance in that situation.

You have to switch up your whole game plan moving from Romo to Dak. More shotgun, more man-beaters, etc. They aren't plug-n-play replacements; well Dak can be in an emergency, but I'd rather just build my offense counting on Dak at that point.

 

[HungryLion]

Huh? You're arguing my point.

Atlanta was up, 31-0, a couple of minutes into the second half. Their defense was just atrocious. Dallas couldn't score much despite lots of yards until very late in the game. It should have been long over by then, and Romo would have capped those drives with his experience and ability.

Now, I don't think Dallas rolls into Atlanta and wins the next week because that was the best team in the NFL that year. But they would have had a scorer's chance.

And Dak would have benefited from watching it unfold.

No I’m not arguing your point. The Falcons defense still had to get stops. Still had to get the ball back for their offense to go score again.

Our defense got steamrolled the first 3 times they were on the field.

Romo starting wouldn’t have prevented that from
Happening.

I’m not the one blaming one aspect of the team for the loss or pretending that changing one player on offense would change the outcome. You are.

Even with Romo starting. Our defense still sucked. That’s the point.

The Falcons defense didn’t suck. Therefore, they had a better chance of winning and did.

You would rather cherry pick the fact that our offense started off slow (even though that also wasn’t totally the QB’s fault) and not recognize that hey. Teams like the falcons and patriots who we would have had to beat also, had better defenses.

 

[erod]

Sure you can. But that proves the point. You can’t just point to the QB and say he is the reason we lost to the Packers. That’s just nonsense.

Yeah, you can.

ALL DEFENSES get weary late. That's why so many points are scored late in games. Even the best defenses are exhausted by the fourth quarter.

There were 30 points easily to be had in those first three quarters. Dallas was moving the ball but couldn't score. Then, Dak threw a ridiculous interception on a bubble screen, and Rodgers had his chance to steal it.

 

[erod]

You have to switch up your whole game plan moving from Romo to Dak. More shotgun, more man-beaters, etc. They aren't plug-n-play replacements; well Dak can be in an emergency, but I'd rather just build my offense counting on Dak at that point.

LOL, no, you just call different plays.

Romo called his plays at the line of scrimmage anyway. Rarely did he run Linehan's call.

 

[beware_d-ware]

LOL, no, you just call different plays.

Romo called his plays at the line of scrimmage anyway. Rarely did he run Linehan's call.

Only the Cowboys and Romo know what Romo's health was really like, but I'd be surprised if he could have made it through 4 quarters of that Packers game. He may have been cleared to play but his history suggests that he was not clear to play.

 

[HungryLion]

@Future

I noticed you deleted your post that “nobody is doing that”.

I guess it’s because you saw I am talking about Erod
Who literally is doing that.

 

[HungryLion]

Yeah, you can.

ALL DEFENSES get weary late. That's why so many points are scored late in games. Even the best defenses are exhausted by the fourth quarter.

There were 30 points easily to be had in those first three quarters. Dallas was moving the ball but couldn't score. Then, Dak threw a ridiculous interception on a bubble screen, and Rodgers had his chance to steal it.

If you think that the QB is the main reason the team lost. In a game where the team scored 30 points. And the QB is the MAIN reason for the loss.

Then I can’t help you. You’re just beyond helping.

 

[Praxit]

..interesting thought. There will always be that hindsight option available. In this case, you have a credible idea that Tony could have made the difference. Its very possible with all those years under his belt. Dak did play a good game. So it doesn't leave a sour note.

 

[DFWJC]

For the 2016 playoff game to have been the 2014 playoff game all over again, you would have needed:

1. Elliott to fumble and lead to points for Green Bay (e.g. Murray 2014 playoff game).
2. Bryant to catch/not catch/<expletive> Blandino (e.g. Bryant 2014 playoff game) and subtract a likely six or seven points for Dallas.

Additionally

3. Prescott not throw an interception deep in Packer territory (e.g. something Romo did not do in the 2014 playoff game) and subtract three, six, or possible seven points on an earlier drive.

Every game is different. It could be Green Bay could have blown out Dallas in the 2016 playoff if certain game day conditions had been met. Likewise, Dallas could have blown out Green Bay if certain events had occurred.

However, using Romo as the only variable while comparing each respective playoff game does not logically work. In fact, it is arguable that it works more against Prescott and lessens the responsibility of the defense's actual failure during that specific game.

The redzone pick by Dak hurt, but he played well overall. The slow start by the offense and then the overall fail by the defense was what killed us.

Besides the things you listed, I think the main difference between the 2104 and 2016 games was the location.
It's not even comparable to play a home playoff game indoors vs on the road in January at Lambeau. The home field is supposed to help the home defense (noise and pass-rush wise) tremendously.

The only other times Dallas has played a non dominant defense in a Home playoff game was last year vs Seattle and in 2009 vs Philly--whose D was decent but not great like the peaking 2007 Giants or the dominant 2014 Lions Ds were.

In that 2009 game, Dallas was leading 34-7 early in the 3rd period and Romo and the offense were heading toward 50 points and 450 yard passing before they completely shut it down for the easy win.

I want Dak and this Cowboys group to get home field advantage for more than one game. That was the recipe for New Orleans' SB win and often is the case for others.
Go Cowboys

 

[HungryLion]

Yeah, you can.

ALL DEFENSES get weary late. That's why so many points are scored late in games. Even the best defenses are exhausted by the fourth quarter.

There were 30 points easily to be had in those first three quarters. Dallas was moving the ball but couldn't score. Then, Dak threw a ridiculous interception on a bubble screen, and Rodgers had his chance to steal it.

Btw, all defenses get weary late?

Does that excuse our defense giving up touchdowns on the first 3 drives the packers had the ball?

The defense must have been weary to start the game too I suppose.

Our defense has not been good enough for years.

Our defense has held the team back in the playoffs for years.

Our defense held the team back in the playoffs even when Romo was QB. Like I said and like was the original point I made as to why trading in Romo
For Dak wouldn’t matter.

Unless you want to argue that our defense hasn’t been holding us back for years, going back to when Romo was QB too.

That’s should be an interesting argument to listen to.

 

[beware_d-ware]

If you think that the QB is the main reason the team lost. In a game where the team scored 30 points. And the QB is the MAIN reason for the loss.

Then I can’t help you. You’re just beyond helping.

It bothers me how much people hated Romo when he was starting, then once he retires, he immediately becomes this halcyon "stud QB of old" and all the hate is turned on to Dak. "Romo would have led us to a Super Bowl", people say, when they were screaming "Romo chokes in big games!" for a decade straight before that.

It shows you that it was never really about either player, it's just fans venting their frustration.

 

[DallasEast]

Did anybody really think this rookie QB was going to be the first rook in NFL history to win a SB, especially without a dominating defense?

Yes. Jerry Jones, Jason Garrett and practically every single individual caught up into the euphoria/chemistry nonsense of the 2016 season. No exceptions.

However, it should also be noted that there was a small minority who both wanted Prescott as the starter and never thought he could lead the team to the Super Bowl that season. They simply wanted Romo gone since they had zero respect for him. Personally, I respect their opinion even though I disagree with it because it was not someone's own reasoning based on the chemistry fallacy.

 

[MarcusRock]

You wanna know what I wonder about more from that 2016 season? More than what would have happened if Romo was starting?

I wonder about how on gods green earth, Aaron Rodgers didn’t fumble that football on the final drive when Jeff Heath clobbered him from the blind side.

Rodgers has one hand on the football and for absolutely drilled. Somehow he managed to hold onto that ball. Next play he drives the dagger through all of our hearts.

That eats me up more than whether Romo should have played or not.

I remember saying that I kinda can't fault Heath because he's not a DE but all he had to do was punch or even slap at the back of Rodgers' elbow and there's no way he could have held on to the ball. Scandrick was right there to scoop it up too.

 

[Jake]

As long as we're indulging football fantasies...

 

[erod]

Btw, all defenses get weary late?

Does that excuse our defense giving up touchdowns on the first 3 drives the packers had the ball?

The defense must have been weary to start the game too I suppose.

Our defense has not been good enough for years.

Our defense has held the team back in the playoffs for years.

Our defense held the team back in the playoffs even when Romo was QB. Like I said and like was the original point I made as to why trading in Romo
For Dak wouldn’t matter.

Unless you want to argue that our defense hasn’t been holding us back for years, going back to when Romo was QB too.

That’s should be an interesting argument to listen to.

Agreed about the defense, but as bad as ours was, Green Bay's was worse. Gotta keep pace in a game like that.

 

[erod]

I remember saying that I kinda can't fault Heath because he's not a DE but all he had to do was punch or even slap at the back of Rodgers' elbow and there's no way he could have held on to the ball. Scandrick was right there to scoop it up too.

How he hung on to that ball still amazes me.

 

[InTheZone]

No matter what happened it was the wrong decision to keep Dak in when tony came back