Looking back: Was it a mistake not to go back to Romo

cern

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,900
Reaction score
21,050
dont have a link but it was the first offer jones made to dak , and all it did was rile france and dak.
Stephen likes to make these lowball offers, thinking it is good strategy, but it isnt.
i can't imagine a professional negotiator being riled by a low ball offer if in fact that's what it was. such things are to be expected just as the front office shouldn't be riled by high demands made by players and agents.
 

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
dont have a link but it was the first offer jones made to dak , and all it did was rile france and dak.
Stephen likes to make these lowball offers, thinking it is good strategy, but it isnt.

I don't recall that. I recall the starting offer, and that was an extension I believe, of 27 for two years. How is that an insult? He was making nothing for his 4th season. I guess I see it differently. 54 mil for two seasons and then you are back at the table after the new CBA, TV and Mahomes deal. How is that a bad thing or insulting. Today, assuming he plays on the tag, he will be making something in the area of 33 for the last two seasons.

I guess I don't see the disrespect of making that offer or the rational of turning it down, in favor of this?
 

Runwildboys

Confused about stuff
Messages
51,686
Reaction score
96,910
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
u dont know the jones boys then lol, all they think about is how to make more money.
Football is secondary to them.
They knew dak was cheap and tony was expensive, Dak was young , tony was old.
But they made the decision too soon, I think it was when dak was 9-1? or was it 11-1 so at that point
Dak looked great, but it was too early to say ok your the new franchise qb and tony is bkup to you.

There was no reason to do that other than money.
They could have after they lost to GB, then said ok we will keep tony, and have competition for qb in TC next season,
and either tony will start or dak will.
Had they done that tony would have stayed, and they would have had a great qb duo.
But then the money issue comes in and they wanted to not pay tony any more than they had too, and roll with their new cheap toy dak.

Then when it came time to pay dak , lol the first thing jones boys do is low ball dak,(25 mil a year lol) and that led to the current dilema.
Jones boys worship $ They think about it 24-7 lol.
How did they save money? Tony didn't get paid any less to sit on the bench.
 

DandyDon52

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,820
Reaction score
16,684
I don't recall that. I recall the starting offer, and that was an extension I believe, of 27 for two years. How is that an insult? He was making nothing for his 4th season. I guess I see it differently. 54 mil for two seasons and then you are back at the table after the new CBA, TV and Mahomes deal. How is that a bad thing or insulting. Today, assuming he plays on the tag, he will be making something in the area of 33 for the last two seasons.

I guess I don't see the disrespect of making that offer or the rational of turning it down, in favor of this?
I dont think the extension changes the rookie deal, he would not have made 27 mil the last year of his rookie deal.
it would just mean he would make 27 starting this season, which is less than he would make on the tag lol.
 

OmerV

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,127
Reaction score
22,621
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
u dont know the jones boys then lol, all they think about is how to make more money.
Football is secondary to them.
They knew dak was cheap and tony was expensive, Dak was young , tony was old.
But they made the decision too soon, I think it was when dak was 9-1? or was it 11-1 so at that point
Dak looked great, but it was too early to say ok your the new franchise qb and tony is bkup to you.

There was no reason to do that other than money.
They could have after they lost to GB, then said ok we will keep tony, and have competition for qb in TC next season,
and either tony will start or dak will.
Had they done that tony would have stayed, and they would have had a great qb duo.
But then the money issue comes in and they wanted to not pay tony any more than they had too, and roll with their new cheap toy dak.

Then when it came time to pay dak , lol the first thing jones boys do is low ball dak,(25 mil a year lol) and that led to the current dilema.
Jones boys worship $ They think about it 24-7 lol.

Like Runny said, they were paying Romo anyway, so sticking with Dak didn't save money. Even so, the money that goes with being a Super Bowl champion would have made the difference in Dak And Romo's salaries look like the difference between the cost of a Roll's Royce and a tricycle. Face it, the Cowboys didn't think Tony was going to win them a Super Bowl, and they couldn't trust his health to hold up.

Look at it realistically. In 2015 Romo got hurt in 2 of the 4 games he played in, and then got hurt again in the first preseason game he played in 2016. That was 3 injuries in 5 games, all of which kept him off the field for extended periods of time. Meanwhile, Dak was behind center over a 2016 season in which the Cowboys clinched not only the division, but homefield advantage through the playoffs. You may disagree with the choice to stick with Dak, but is it really that hard to understand the choice and accept that there was a reasonable basis for it?
 

DandyDon52

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,820
Reaction score
16,684
How did they save money? Tony didn't get paid any less to sit on the bench.
well they would save money as soon as romo retires or is released, and then in the future as well.
1mil a year for dak, opposed to 25 mil for tony lol , surely u see that?
 

buybuydandavis

Well-Known Member
Messages
24,370
Reaction score
21,363
The 20/20 hindsight seems to assume that Tony Romo would somehow hold up to the ordinary NFL hits that in 2015 and 2016 were putting him on the DL. Meanwhile, Dak was the QB while the Cowboys went on their longest winning streak in team history and secured the #1 seed in the playoffs. I just have to disagree with the idea that Tony Romo would have carried this team farther in 2016 if given the chance. The evidence seems clear, he was a physically broken player by then.

Came back too early in 2015 and broke the same bone which had had limited time to heal. The back injury was more of a fluke in that players rarely take hits like that, and especially QBs. It was just dumb of Tony, particularly in the preseason.

Tony wasn't physically the same player he was when young. Needed to protect his body. Just as he did in 2014, having his best season ever.

If Tony broke, we put Dak back in. While Tony was playing, do we have a better QB? Yeah, I think so.

If Dak had broken in 2016, would we have played Tony? You betcha. And we would have rode him as long as he lasted. Tony wasn't too broken for us to rely on him to backup Dak.
 

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
I dont think the extension changes the rookie deal, he would not have made 27 mil the last year of his rookie deal.
it would just mean he would make 27 starting this season, which is less than he would make on the tag lol.

No, it depends entirely on how much would have been up front. So 27 annually for both years could have been set up as a bonus and been paid up front. Then spread out in the cap. Remember, the team has had a considerable amount of money set aside from last year. Either way, Dak would have gotten his 27 annually in two years, and been in better position to make more money sooner. Either way you slice it, over the last year and this upcoming season, he makes more money.
 

DandyDon52

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,820
Reaction score
16,684
The money that goes with being a Super Bowl champion would have made the difference in Dak And Romo's salaries look like the difference between a Roll's Royce and a tricycle. Face it, the Cowboys didn't think Tony was going to win them a Super Bowl, and they couldn't trust his health to hold up.

Look at it realistically. In 2015 Romo got hurt in 2 of the 4 games he played in, and then got hurt again in the first preseason game he played in 2016. That was 3 injuries in 5 games, all of which kept him off the field for extended periods of time. Meanwhile, Dak was behind center over a 2016 season in which the Cowboys clinched not only the division, but homefield advantage through the playoffs. You may disagree with the choice to stick with Dak, but is it really that hard to understand the choice and accept that there was a reasonable basis for it?
Ok but the 2nd injury in 15, was jones boys fault for letting tony come back too soon. There is no way a collarbone heals in 5 weeks lol
that is just fantasy thinking.
That season was done, they should have let tony heal up proper and get high draft picks.

The next injury was a freak injury, I have never seen a qb get hit in that manner in 50 years of watching the game.
tony could have come back in week ten and it would not have hurt anything to let him play and see what happens as they could always go back
to dak
 

Vtwin

Safety third
Messages
8,679
Reaction score
12,166
Romo did not jack in post season, you act as if he was a SB QB yet facts do not back it up. You have a young QB who leads his team to 13-3 and then say go sit down? BS no way would I do that to him or any other QB. Had he only came in a few games to start the season then of course I put Romo back out there but in this case no I ride with the guy who got me there. As for results, GB did not make post season by accident, Atlanta did beat up on GB and Matt Ryan had an MVP season that year
You could just as easily say that Dak had done jack in the post season. It is not even debatable that a rookie had never won a SB.

Romo - Experienced vet with a much better understanding of the offense and opposing defenses coming off his best season as a pro.

Dak - Rookie with a hot hand driving the Ferrari through a regular season schedule.

Those are facts. It's going to be a pretty hard sell to convince me the experienced vet doesn't give the team the best chance for success in the playoffs.

We will never know what would have transpired if Romo took over. We do know how things played out with Dak.
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,169
Reaction score
17,772
Yes, robbed. The head of officiating took the game out of the hands of the players. Literally.

Where in the rules does it say that the "going to the ground rule took precedence over all other catch rules unless a player executed a lunge"? Where is a "going to ground rule" defined? What are "other catch rules"? Where does it say what is a "football move"? Going to the ground has no relevance to whether a player catches the ball or not unless the motion to the ground or the ground is the sole reason for why the player doesn't maintain possession through the catch. That is what the rule should have been. Dez caught it, established possession in every way that has been applicable in the previous decades of football--he wouldn't have been able to pull it to his body and reach for the goal line if he didn't--and the only reason he didn't maintain possession through the "act of going to the ground" (whatever that is) is because he was trying to reach for the goal line.

And your link doesn't work.

What the rule "should have been" and what it actually was are 2 separate things. First, here are all the catch rules from 2014.

ARTICLE 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is
complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:


a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act
common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an
opponent, etc.).


Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must
lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.


If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact
by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field
of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass
is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Item 2: Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the
process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the
process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.
Item 3: End Zone Catches. The requirements for a catch in the end zone are the same as the requirements for a catch in
the field of play.
Note: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, after which contact by a defender causes the ball to
become loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action
is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the ball is
dead when the catch is completed.

Item 4: Ball Touches Ground. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control of it, it is a catch, provided
that the player continues to maintain control.
Item 5: Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the
ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently
gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing
team become eligible to catch the loose ball.

Item 6: Carried Out of Bounds. If a player, who is in possession of the ball, is held up and carried out of bounds by an
opponent before both feet or any part of his body other than his hands touches the ground inbounds, it is a completed or
intercepted pass.

So note that there are multiple sets of rules. The "main" catch rule has the parts a, b, and c. If that main rule can't be satisfied then other rules kick in that take precedence. Item 1 in red is the going to the ground rule. How do I know these take precedence? Look at Item 6. In that case, the main catch rule can't be performed so once deemed such, this rule's requirements kick in. Same for all the "Items". These are the mechanics of the rule. This is why catch theorists fight tooth and nail trying to say that the main rule applied because if it doesn't then Dez is dead in the water per Item 1. There's NO dispute about that. So after Dez high-pointed the ball, he comes to the ground in one motion. If he had "time enough" to perform an act common to the game, he would have done so instead of going to the ground with his momentum as was explained. The only thing in the rules (Approved Rulings 8.12 & 15.95) that shows you can get out of a going to the ground label is actually lunging to propel yourself forward or extend the ball out like in that video that doesn't work now (NFL Network revamped their videos). Dez did neither. It's clear to me he wanted to, but didn't execute.

These 2 clearly do not compare in the slightest when you talk about lunging OR a football move. The first player clearly does both. Dez was going to the ground the whole way while getting a foot taken out from him to prevent his attempt. Them's the breaks in this case. Even then, he just had to hold onto the ball but didn't do that either.

boldin-dive.gif
54b2f228ecad043a388d51c3
 

DandyDon52

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,820
Reaction score
16,684
No, it depends entirely on how much would have been up front. So 27 annually for both years could have been set up as a bonus and been paid up front. Then spread out in the cap. Remember, the team has had a considerable amount of money set aside from last year. Either way, Dak would have gotten his 27 annually in two years, and been in better position to make more money sooner. Either way you slice it, over the last year and this upcoming season, he makes more money.
Well if he got the 2x27 as a bonus up front, then he makes 0 in those 2 years lol
He makes more playing on the tag and it is all guaranteed.
Dak didnt need or want future salary as a bonus unless it was the amount per year he wanted.
Dak is playing the money game, he can play on tag twice, then 2 years from now get a contract for more than 35 mil a year whether it
is here or elsewhere.
 

Doomsday101

Well-Known Member
Messages
107,762
Reaction score
39,034
You could just as easily say that Dak had done jack in the post season. It is not even debatable that a rookie had never won a SB.

Romo - Experienced vet with a much better understanding of the offense and opposing defenses coming off his best season as a pro.

Dak - Rookie with a hot hand driving the Ferrari through a regular season schedule.

Those are facts. It's going to be a pretty hard sell to convince me the experienced vet doesn't give the team the best chance for success in the playoffs.

We will never know what would have transpired if Romo took over. We do know how things played out with Dak.

We disagree, not willing to continue an argument from 2016, I was in favor of Dak playing in the game then and mind has not changed.
 

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
Well if he got the 2x27 as a bonus up front, then he makes 0 in those 2 years lol
He makes more playing on the tag and it is all guaranteed.
Dak didnt need or want future salary as a bonus unless it was the amount per year he wanted.
Dak is playing the money game, he can play on tag twice, then 2 years from now get a contract for more than 35 mil a year whether it
is here or elsewhere.

No, that's not the way it works. He would have gotten a portion of that, more then likely so the 2. whatever plus the upfront money and then the balance in the following years but lets be real, the team would not have wanted to let him get to his 2nd year without a new deal so really, it would have been a one year deal and another renegotiation for more money. The cash he was still owed would have simply been added to the new deal. Either way, he gets more money sooner. But lets say he did get 54 upfront, that's still more money by a lot and so what if he doesn't get any until he gets his new deal. Every player in the league would take that deal because they all want that money in their pockets as soon as possible.
 

DFWJC

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,990
Reaction score
48,740
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
It's crazy to think about Demarco Murray's 2014 season
Yep, really the one year where Dallas truly had a dominant run game before Zeke and after Emmitt.
Just a small glimpse of what Zeke with Romo would look like....but Zeke was/is better still..
And no, this isn't anti-Dak. And I realize old Tony's body had taken years of beatings.
More of a statement about how lethal they would've been together.
 

darthseinfeld

Groupthink Guru
Messages
33,565
Reaction score
38,195
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
That's obviously why you jumped in to say something.

To defend your man. You're the obsessed one, don't try to fight it.

#DontpayDak
Im not the one that puts a hash tag on the end of every post. You take the time, every post, to type out #DontpayDak. Would you even be here anymore if it weren't for Dak?

Funny thing is, I didn't even mention Prescott. Post had nothing to do with him. But it sent you into a rage none the less. Have a beer or something, and try not triggered so easily. Its unhealthy
 

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
Yep, really the one year where Dallas truly had a dominant run game before Zeke and after Emmitt.
Just a small glimpse of what Zeke with Romo would look like....but Zeke was/is better still..
And no, this isn't anti-Dak. And I realize old Tony's body had taken years of beatings.
More of a statement about how lethal they would've been together.

The last drive of his career as a Cowboy did it for me. Against Philly, in Philly, in a 3-3 ball game. Tony comes in and in less then 3 minutes, drives the team for a TD. Made it look easy TBH and that offense did nothing up to that point of the game. I mean, he made it look like what it was. A QB who had seen it all with complete command of the Offense vs a young QB who was still busy learning the Pro Game. In that moment, I just remember thinking what a great year it could have been if we had been able to have Tony as the starter.

But I was happy to be able to see him get the chance to throw the ball around one last time.
 

Runwildboys

Confused about stuff
Messages
51,686
Reaction score
96,910
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
well they would save money as soon as romo retires or is released, and then in the future as well.
1mil a year for dak, opposed to 25 mil for tony lol , surely u see that?
But that has nothing to do with letting Romo finish out the season and giving him the opportunity to get them to the SB. I thought we were talking about that particular season?
 

Whirlwin

Cowboy , It’s a way of life.
Messages
26,634
Reaction score
17,974
Jimmy's point is my point as well. People are thinking of 2014 Romo when they say he'd have been better than Dak. And with Zeke in the backfield I'd agree. Thing was you didn't know what you were going to get with Romo coming back in 2016. If he came back during the season and struggled, what do you do then during a playoff push? It would have been more embarrassing to bring him back and then potentially yank him for the playoffs (or during the playoffs). I wouldn't have cared about feelings though. That's CowboysZone's job, lol.
Do you think he would’ve been better . Never mind forget it
 
Top