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

[LACowboysFan1]

No, I don't think so. First of all Romo hadn't played for quite a while, to come back in and take over when Dak had played so long probably would have not worked. Remember in, if memory serves, 1979 when Roger had been out, came back in and won a game in relief, but the next week he was awful. And Roger was a vastly experienced, twice SB champ quarterback, and he had troubles coming back.

Second, as much as I loved Romo playing, he had his chances. Too many late game interceptions, too many injuries. He wasn't going to bring this team to the SB. Sorry, he just wasn't.

Dak may not either, but at some point you have to realize it's not going to happen, and make changes. Same thing with Garrett, had his chances, too many bad calls and just didn't have "it" to coach a SB champ.

Hated that Romo never got a ring, but life's tough....

 

[J12B]

Dak played so good Romo said I'm retiring. C'mon people. Dak was a beast his rookie season.

You're certainly right. Dak played excellent. Moved the ball. Made plays. Hardly turned the ball.

But my point is if Dak excelled like that, Romo would have absolutely shredded opposing defenses with how they had to respect the run (given he stayed healthy).

Most importantly, Romo literally gave his body and health for the good of the team for 9 seasons. Then they basically just threw him to the curb. Seemed wrong to me in hindsight.

 

[MarcusRock]

You're certainly right. Dak played excellent. Moved the ball. Made plays. Hardly turned the ball.

But my point is if Dak excelled like that, Romo would have absolutely shredded opposing defenses with how they had to respect the run (given he stayed healthy).

Most importantly, Romo literally gave his body and health for the good of the team for 9 seasons. Then they basically just threw him to the curb. Seemed wrong to me in hindsight.

Happened to Ware too. People get poisoned by Disney in thinking that everything should just work out fine in the end. Or poisoned by the media with hero narratives. Doesn't always work like that. No one's entitled to their dreams. A lot of people don't achieve their dreams even though they work super hard to get it. Now if Tony's dream was to make a lot of money in his lifetime, he achieved that one .... and still is.

 

[DandyDon52]

This is the what I don’t understand, 1.5 games is too small of a sample size for 2015. Yet one drive is enough to rate him on 2016. I am literally dumbfounded at the things that are said in defense of Romo.

Well I will try to explain it lol.
I never said Romo looked great for all of the 16 season, he didnt look great in PS, and since he didnt play in 16 , there is no way he could look
great for the season! Had he not got hurt and played all of 16 , he probably would not have looked as good as he did in that one drive.
And he surely would have been beat up a little at end of season, so again would not have looked like he did in that game where he was healed up
fully and fresh, and motivated by dak taking his job.
That was a fresh Romo who for once was highly motivated by the competition he never had before.
And that is why I think he would have done great in the playoff game, I think we would have seen a romo we had never seen before.

And the jones boys could not see that, as they were not looking at things properly.
We all say it is a team game, and the idea is to win, but in this instance it was about appeasing dak, and not creating a qb controversy,
and going with the cheaper younger qb, instead of winning that GB game.

And they achieved all of their goals, except winning that game.

Now what I am saying goes against standard football thinking, because other teams do same thing dallas did.
I think they should have played Romo, and if they won the GB game, that shouldnt have made tony the "starter" again, the next game
start tony and if he struggles, put dak back in, see if he can rally the team and so forth.
The reason being they had 2 good qb's why not use them both? The idea is to win not pamper a qb and his ego.
They could have used both, but chose to use only one of them , and to me that is stupid.

I call it "football mentality" they get used to doing things a certain way and they wont do anything new or different due to that mentality.

And now about 15 , 1, and a half game is not enough to judge a player for the whole season. Players often start the season not playing
very good, and get better as the season goes on. but only if they play each week.
and tony was allowed to play too soon, and re injured the Cbone , the miami game was after not playing for 5 weeks, and then carolina
was top 5 defense at that point in time.
It was stupid to have tony in those games, expecting him and the team to win like 8 or 9 games in a row lol. It was just crazy stupid.
It also exposed their weakness in the bkup qb area. had they won say 4 of 7 games while tony was out then maybe they have a chance.

 

[DandyDon52]

Exactly. A QBs job is to get the ball in the end zone, not only to get it in the end zone with a pass.

ok I am on the romo should have played side, but rushing td's by qb do count, same as a passing td.
The only thing one might draw from that is tony was a better passer, and throwing for a td in redzone is harder than running it in.
But Daks td's would have to include the ones he ran for or threw for as his total td's.

The one thing that is also misleading , or actually several things lol is this......
What if a rb runs 70 yds to the 1 yard line and then qb throws a td pass. That makes his td stats look better but in reality not so much.
What if a QB throws a really nice 70 yd pass, and wr is tackled at the one, and then next play or so the RB takes it in for the TD.
that makes it look good for the RB and run game stats, but not the qb that actually got them down there!

So stats , all of them are flawed.
Same thing if the off fumbles the ball on their own 5 , and other team then runs it in for td, it makes the defense look bad , when really
it was the off which screwed up.
If say the dallas def gets a fumble or int and runs it back to the 5 or just recovers it there, then their off scores easy td, it makes that off
look better than it really is, and defense only gets credit for the TO.

 

[Corso]

It certainly does "depend". It depends on our agenda. We all have one...even pretending you don;t have any agenda is...an agenda.

(not YOU you,......just "you" in general)

Now I'm wondering what my agenda is.
thoughts thoughts thoughts...

 

[Corso]

You're certainly right. Dak played excellent. Moved the ball. Made plays. Hardly turned the ball.

But my point is if Dak excelled like that, Romo would have absolutely shredded opposing defenses with how they had to respect the run (given he stayed healthy).

Most importantly, Romo literally gave his body and health for the good of the team for 9 seasons. Then they basically just threw him to the curb. Seemed wrong to me in hindsight.

Happens in sports all the darn time. You just don't care about those guys.

 

[DandyDon52]

I've always wondered why teams don't allow backups to play here and there when games are decided one way or the other. It's not just the Cowboys that don't do that, it's just something that isn't done much.

Of course, in most cases that would only be late in the game with the team just handing off the ball to wind down the clock, but some time under center would be better than nothing. Having a meaningless game at the end of the season where the team isn't planning to play starters much, if at all, is a different opportunity, and one Cooper didn't have. The main goal of that Philly game was really just to make sure players didn't get hurt before the playoffs.

I call it "football mentality" plus they are afraid they might somehow lose the game and be blamed for letting the bkup go in.
I think it is a good way to see what your bkup can do. even let him throw, mainly deep passes, so if int it is like a punt.

 

[Aviano90]

Well I will try to explain it lol.
I never said Romo looked great for all of the 16 season, he didnt look great in PS, and since he didnt play in 16 , there is no way he could look
great for the season! Had he not got hurt and played all of 16 , he probably would not have looked as good as he did in that one drive.
And he surely would have been beat up a little at end of season, so again would not have looked like he did in that game where he was healed up
fully and fresh, and motivated by dak taking his job.
That was a fresh Romo who for once was highly motivated by the competition he never had before.
And that is why I think he would have done great in the playoff game, I think we would have seen a romo we had never seen before.

And the jones boys could not see that, as they were not looking at things properly.
We all say it is a team game, and the idea is to win, but in this instance it was about appeasing dak, and not creating a qb controversy,
and going with the cheaper younger qb, instead of winning that GB game.

And they achieved all of their goals, except winning that game.

Now what I am saying goes against standard football thinking, because other teams do same thing dallas did.
I think they should have played Romo, and if they won the GB game, that shouldnt have made tony the "starter" again, the next game
start tony and if he struggles, put dak back in, see if he can rally the team and so forth.
The reason being they had 2 good qb's why not use them both? The idea is to win not pamper a qb and his ego.
They could have used both, but chose to use only one of them , and to me that is stupid.

I call it "football mentality" they get used to doing things a certain way and they wont do anything new or different due to that mentality.

And now about 15 , 1, and a half game is not enough to judge a player for the whole season. Players often start the season not playing
very good, and get better as the season goes on. but only if they play each week.
and tony was allowed to play too soon, and re injured the Cbone , the miami game was after not playing for 5 weeks, and then carolina
was top 5 defense at that point in time.
It was stupid to have tony in those games, expecting him and the team to win like 8 or 9 games in a row lol. It was just crazy stupid.
It also exposed their weakness in the bkup qb area. had they won say 4 of 7 games while tony was out then maybe they have a chance.

For me it is real simple, I can respect an opinion that 2015 and 2016 should both be included or or both be excluded due to sample size.

I can’t respect an opinion that one year is used while the other is dismissed based upon how one wants to spin what happened to fit their agenda. To me it is just dishonest.

 

[pete026]

A snippet from an article posted after Bart Starr passed away:

"As a player, Starr will be remembered for being the only quarterback ever to lead his team to five NFL titles in a decade and for that frozen-in-time moment where he was lying face down under a pile of bodies in the south end zone of Lambeau Field, the hero of the Ice Bowl.

To this day, a half-century later, Starr's game-winning quarterback sneak in that Dec. 31, 1967, game remains the signature moment in Packers history and personified what the Packers franchise is all about: Perseverance against all odds and unmatched success among all NFL teams."

I guess somebody believes QB running touchdowns are significant. Maybe it's just me but somehow, I don't think a pass would have had the same staying power. Ahhhh, but what do I know....... as I was watching this game live, I became a lifelong Cowboys fan.

Did I have favorite players at 6 years old. Sure....... Bob Hayes then Chuck Howley, Drew Pearson. But at some point you mature as a fan and just want your team to succeed. I just don't get grown men picking a player over their team and that, from my viewpoint, is what I have seen in this century. Giving good natured shots, sure. Arguing FO decisions, most definitely. But this Romo/Dak thing is ridiculous. I don't know...... maybe I've outgrown "the game".

 

[Buzzbait]

Another Dak slobbering quack has entered the building. Thanks for informing us that broken bones are chronic, debilitating injuries. The stupid train keeps on rolling.

My thoughts exactly, as soon as I read your post.

 

[basel90]

We would have won more playoff games for sure with romo . Plus , romo would have audibled out of many questionable jason Garrett and staff calls . Romo would have influenced the decision making more . Dak has no such acumen , he is very limited in his reading of the game .

 

[Aviano90]

We would have won more playoff games for sure with romo . Plus , romo would have audibled out of many questionable jason Garrett and staff calls . Romo would have influenced the decision making more . Dak has no such acumen , he is very limited in his reading of the game .

Perhaps better QB play would have allowed us to win the GB game. That also means a better QB would have enabled us to win more playoff games from 2006-2015. Even a one legged Aaron Rodgers would have led the 2014 Cowboys to a SB title. He’s never had an offensive line, the leagues leading rusher, or a receiver like Dez. That offense would have put up 35+ points a game with Rodgers. We made an mistake not drafting him. I can only imagine how much better our teams would have been.

 

[G2]

I keep hearing that Romo would have done better in 2016 with an elite RB, but his best season was 2014 with Murray who had the best season a Dallas RB ever had.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Now I'm wondering what my agenda is.
thoughts thoughts thoughts...

Yes indeed. Cognitive bias can be a tough self-evaluation! Keep working at it.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

I keep hearing that Romo would have done better in 2016 with an elite RB, but his best season was 2014 with Murray who had the best season a Dallas RB ever had.

Murray was good. Would have become one of my favorite RB's. But the dang fumble. I don't hate him for it....but..hard for me to get over it too.

A lot like Jackie's Smith's "fumble". Heartbreaking.

(Now before you come at me...yes...I know...."one play doesn't make a game". Yes, I know "all players have critical errors". No matter...it is what it is for me.)

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

We would have won more playoff games for sure with romo . Plus , romo would have audibled out of many questionable jason Garrett and staff calls . Romo would have influenced the decision making more . Dak has no such acumen , he is very limited in his reading of the game .

Probably could be one of the best stances on the matter. "If helthy" o but of course! Tony's experience and command of the game....might have made a difference in a big pressure situation.

 

[G2]

Murray was good. Would have become one of my favorite RB's. But the dang fumble. I don't hate him for it....but..hard for me to get over it too.

A lot like Jackie's Smith's "fumble". Heartbreaking.

(Now before you come at me...yes...I know...."one play doesn't make a game". Yes, I know "all players have critical errors". No matter...it is what it is for me.)

The "fumble" in my opinion has been blown out of proportion. I was at the sideline vantage and when the ball comes out the defenders change direction. He would have gotten tackled regardless. And there was a safety deep. I encourage you to check that view.

 

[PAPPYDOG]

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*

After firing Jimmy this was Jerry's 2nd biggest mistake!

 

[_sturt_]

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

That's the cruel but most likely result... and, when Dak goes back in, there's a question of whether the continuity hiccup allows him to have the same success that he did, too.

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

Jason Garrett.....*shivers*

As a Romo fan myself who was still holding out some hope he'd return to the game and compete for the job instead of going to CBS...

I say, no, stop it. Romo himself--stand-up guy that he is--took the podium in late October of that year and gave a lecture on meritocracy that put to bed any argument. In other words, if Romo himself didn't consider it "dirty," then that effectively removes any oxygen from that flame.