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

[DuncanIso]

Romo should have been a real man and charged onto the field to tackle Aaron Rodgers during that 3rd-and-20 play in the Packers game. It could have saved the game.

Speaking of that play, Marinelli got a pass on that D call.

“cover None”

 

[starfan1]

Speaking of that play, Marinelli got a pass on that D call.

“cover None”

the magnificent Byron Jones if i remember correctly

 

[pete026]

It was time for Romo to leave for greener pastures......but for those that think it was him that was holding us back, he was clearly vindicated since his replacement hasn't taken us one step further than Romo did...........but demands to be paid like he has

And Romo didn't demand the same compensation?
It is a rhetorical question.... for you, that means you don't have to answer. For me, that means I should have just ignored your post.

 

[Master22]

I largely agree re 2014 and the reality is that it was on Dez Bryant. I love me some Dez so I don't bang on about it but he knew the rules or should have known the rules at the time. He had control of the ball, he just needed to land normally in play to chew up some clock rather than focus on trying to score a TD! Yet people blame Romo for not throwing the ball to Beasley having slowed down the play to super slow mo and seen him open for a split second. Football doesn't work like that and when watched in real time the throw to Beasley just wasn't on. Romo would have had to loop the ball to him by which time Beasley would have got crushed by a defender. It's questionable if he even makes the first down and even more unlikely that he holds onto the ball. Yet some people blame Romo for Dez dropping the ball! Just shows how much people hate him.

I don't blame the zebras - the rule was the problem which has subsequently been changed and rightly so.

Blaming officials and decisions is a loser mentality. I remember the Lions blaming the play where the zebras picked up a flag in the 2014 play off game. They conveniently do not mention the countless incorrect decisions against the Cowboys in that game which were far more than against the Lions and officially documented after the game. Best team won on the day with a fantastic comeback. Loser mentality blaming officials.

I know I was ticked when that play happened but in the end who knows if the Defense would have held on anyhow.

And I have made the same statement about that Detroit game that doesn't get acknowledged much if at all. Lions were only in that game because of the earlier calls that lead to all of their points in the first half.

 

[OmerV]

Of course not, but you're being disingenuous. The person is pushing back against the narrative that mouth breathing Dak slobbering clowns try to push that every single loss the Cowboys ever experienced ended with a Romo interception in the end zone that swung the game from a win to a loss. If we're being analytical, I'm not sure when Romo ever "choked" except the aforementioned Giants game. He played terrible and made mistakes in a whole lot of games that they were underdogs in and weren't particularly winnable in the first place, but he never pulled a Russell Wilson and threw the ball right to another guy in the Super Bowl. People think it's a Super Bowl stopping choke-crime that Romo threw an interception in a road game as underdogs that prevented a horrible 8-8 team from getting smoked in the playoffs the next week.

Mouth breathing Dak slobbering Clowns? You think this kind of 4th grade insulting establishes you as fair minded? What it does is establishes you as being as unfairly anit-Dak as you are claiming others are unfairly anti-Romo.

Now, let's try a little reality. Romo was a very good QB, who, like Dak, had the ability to win big with the team if things went well. Unfortunately for Romo, that didn't happen, and some of it is on him, and some on the rest of the team, and some on the coaching. But if we are fair, early in his career Romo was widely criticized for making key mistakes late in games, and particularly in December when the season was winding down.

Sure, some of the criticism was probably unfair, but although I can't remember specific moments, I do recall feeling that at times. Romo improved greatly in that area as his career went on, but let's not pretend he didn't have his moments where he didn't play well or didn't make a key mistake. Hell, even Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Brees etc … had an occasional moment like that.

As for the idea that a QB or team cannot choke in a game they weren't favored to win, I disagree. If a play is available with a chance to win the game, and the QB or team doesn't make it, or worse, makes a mistake that turns the game the other way, that doesn't just get excused y saying " well, we weren't expected to win anyway". No quality athlete thinks that way, and the reality is that stepping up in those kinds of moments is how an athlete and a team go from being underdogs to being the team to beat.

 

[CowboysRule]

If he is running for his life he is outside of the pocket and can throw the ball away. This is something that you had to take the good with the bad with Romo. He didn’t like to throw the ball away and Parcells tried to hammer it into Romo to no avail. It made for some spectacular plays but also put us in bad field position and/or turned the ball over.

At least he was trying to do something to win. Should we rely on Felix Jones or Julius Jones back there to win a game? Think he could lean on the defense to get a turnover? No. He either had to make a play or we were toast. More often than not, it worked. People just like to remember a few important moments when it didn't (even it wasn't his fault. Looking at you Crayton).

 

[OmerV]

if jerry wants a guy cleared to play, he will be cleared. The power of being billionaire owner of cowboys gives him that power.
The guy has to also want to play and think he is good to go, for it to happen.
Nothing could ever be proven about whether he was really ok to play or not.
Only the doctor would know and it would be in his best interest to not say anything.

also the wash game was 2014 I think not sure though but I am sure others here remember that game and jerry coming down and getting
romo back in the game.

That is not accurate. The NFL is very strict and clear about that. Injury lists are not something made up to help out gamblers and bookmakers, they are used by the league to protect players and monitor teams. And there is no way Jerry would risk losing his NFL franchise over that.

As your comment that nothing could be proven about whether Romo was really okay to play .. first of all, who was it that was trying to prove it and why couldn't he prove it? Are you claiming a conspiracy that shut out deep investigative reporting - did the Washington Post need to bring in Woodward and Bernstein and ope they could find a "Deep Throat" in Dallas (No, not Debbie)? And if nobody ever proved it, how is it that you can act as if Romo wasn't okay to play? You admit that you don't know, yet you accuse Jerry anyway. Not much logic to that.

But this isn't 40 years ago, and a player doesn't play or come off the injured list unless he is medically cleared. And, realistically, what do you think is more likely, that doctors would risk losing their medical license, and Jerry risk losing the Dallas Cowboys, or that the doctors made an evaluation and the team went with that? The risk clearly doesn't warrant what you are suggesting.

 

[Aviano90]

At least he was trying to do something to win. Should we rely on Felix Jones or Julius Jones back there to win a game? Think he could lean on the defense to get a turnover? No. He either had to make a play or we were toast. More often than not, it worked. People just like to remember a few important moments when it didn't (even it wasn't his fault. Looking at you Crayton).

I'm fine with this take as long as you extend the same courtesy to other QBs as well and don't excuse it for one QB while blaming the other, which is what a lot of people do.

 

[Aviano90]

Seriously?..........its been posted ad nauseum for a decade on these forums and you dont believe anyone thinks Romo was holding us back?

C'mon man

Yes, in the past many people acted like the Dak haters do now. You're right. I thought you were talking about the current environment. My bad.

 

[Whyjerry]

Jason Garrett was the HC so it would not have mattered. He would have found ways to lose the big games no matter who the QB was.

Think about how many big games did Jason Garrett win? In 10 years you could count them on one hand. He was also hampered by the fact he wasn’t good enough to get to big games.

Does anyone seriously see Jason Garrett winning a NFC championship game let alone a SB?

 

[Rockport]

I wonder how things would have played out in 2016 if Romo got his job back once he became healthy.

Perhaps he could have taken the team all the way to the Superbowl like he almost did in 2014.

Perhaps Romo could have played one more season and Dak would only have 2018 and 2019 as being a starter for this team. His value would most likely be worth less because 2017 was a down year for Dak.

Perhaps he could've got re-injured and Dak would've stepped back in only further proving Romo's durability issues.

But to this day I still think Garrett and Jones did Romo dirty by not giving him his starting job back.

Jason Garrett.....*shivers*

Hell no. He was on an 11 game winning streak on his way to a Pro Bowl and Rookie of the Year. Even Romo agreed with sticking with Dak as much as it hurt him to say it.

 

[Frozen700]

Thats the third time you told me to stop peeing sitting down lol. Once was bad enough. You went to it twice lol. You must be a Quaker or something, and the worst thing you are allowed.

Anyways, I'm bored with you.

Maybe Rockport will take me off ignore soon.

You are boring as well.

You got beef with Rockport? Well that changes everything. Maybe you're not so bad after all

Enemy of my enemy

#DontpayDak

 

[MarcusRock]

No, not wrong. a), b), and c) all visually apply to Dez. You want to assert that Item 1 overrides them. Nowhere does any part of the rule state anything about the latter overriding the former. Even if granted that it does, the item is there to determine if there is a doubt about possession established via player control through the act. It says nothing about the ball touching the ground being the cause for loss of control. It says if the player regains control before he touches the ground despite the ball touching the ground the pass is still complete. And if the ball supposedly leaves both his hands before he re-possesses it, that means he had possession, and therefore it can't be incomplete (it would be considered a fumble before the repossession, and the ground cannot cause a fumble even when a player is merely touched while going to ground). The point is to establish possession via control of the ball. The concept of football moves is there to reinforce the establishment of control which defines possession of the ball.

Everyone and their mother who has been watching football for years knows Dez caught it by every meaning of the term. The only way Dez didn't catch it is an interpretive dance around a rule that allowed it to be overturned, completely defeating the spirit of the rule.

You're jumbling the words of the rule to get the result you want, not according to how they're written in black and white. Everyone who's weighed in doesn't dispute that Dez did a) and b). But if he doesn't do c) and he's going to the ground in the process of making the catch, then those rules apply and even there you're bending those rules to suit your case. What you leave out is the part stating the player "must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground." Sorry, but dead in the water right there but it further clarifies that if possession is ever lost and the ball ever touches the ground (not the player, lol) before a player regains control (regains because he lost it at some point) the pass is incomplete. What are you not seeing here? All Dez had to do was keep the ball off the ground. He could have bobbled it 10 times or had it leave his hands like it did and it still would have been a catch. Even if the ball hit the ground and Dez tightly controlled it "throughout the process of contacting the ground" it would have been a catch. But he tried to do too much.

And I already showed you where the Items override the main catch rule. When the main rule isn't or can't be satisfied. Then the Items kick in and nothing done in the main rule matters anymore. Once those tags are applied, those rules apply, barring everything else. Want more proof? Here's the guy that was in charge when the Calvin Johnson play happened. Think he doesn't know how the rules apply? This was after the Jesse James play that got the rule changed.



So if he's wrong here, show it. If there's a media expose saying he's wrong here, show it. Where's the media expose saying Dez did catch it by the rules and the NFL covered things up? Why don't those exist outside of Cowboys fans writing articles? So if CONSPIRACY! is the response to all this data, then you have no response, only the end of your rope because there's no proof available. Therefore, insert a hazy conspiracy that conveniently needs no proof. That's known as an excuse to the lay person.

 

[Preoccupied]

The Dallas Cowboys hindsight game.
Have hours of fun with family and friends looking back on the history of the franchise and second-guess every move

Bonus what if cards included

This forum in a nutshell

 

[shabazz]

Yes, in the past many people acted like the Dak haters do now. You're right. I thought you were talking about the current environment. My bad.

Respect to you, cuz.

 

[chagus]

Yes, i think a healthy Romo wouldve been a huge advantage and given Dallas a much better chance at advancing.

But one name would've stopped them cold:

Garrett.

 

[shabazz]

And Romo didn't demand the same compensation?
It is a rhetorical question.... for you, that means you don't have to answer. For me, that means I should have just ignored your post.

No, Romo never demanded the same compensation as Dakota is demanding. Dakota is demanding to become the HIGHEST paid player in the NFL. At Romos peak he was still just the 6th highest paid player and that was just for the 2013 season.........non-rhetorically speaking

All the other years he wasn't even in the top 25 highest paid players, however because he was lucky enough to work in the great state of Texas where he was able to avoid state tax and was able to see more of his money than other players paid at a higher salary elsewhere........rhetorically speaking.

Please don't ignore me, It would be more than one could bear.

 

[InTheZone]

Yes because we know the outcome and because the cowboys were trying to make history when it's shown the odds are against you for not. Screw JG even more for this.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You too my good friend.
We're in the middle of redoing the entire kitchen. Getting a slew of cast iron cookware... a turquoise Smeg fridge (wife was unbelievably giddy when I told her and that's her fave color) and all new knives and utensils as we paint the area and install Spanish tile on the floor.

And a new backsplash!

I tell ya, I'm in a super-cooking mood and nothing has come in yet!
Well, except for the tile, paint and backsplash.

Hey Corso,

Sounds like you got a lot going on Brother. Gonna be nice though when you get it all finished but sounds like kind of a lot work just to fry up burgers.

 

[Section446]

Nope, it was the right move at the time.