Terrance Williams preferred Romo over Dak

[erod]

The cowboy fanbase is ridiculed because they are spoiled and believe because they were so successful in past that it should be every season

No, it's because they (1) think they're a great franchise even though they've been barely relevant for almost 3 decades, (2) wildly overestimate most of their players, (3) insist that the league office and referees are out to get them, and (4) have an embarrassingly low football IQ in general.

While that's true about most fan bases, it's far more ingrained and widespread here.

 

[erod]

wow, this thread brought out the Romo Lovers and explains a lot of the Dak hate.

Romo was 1-3 in the playoffs. barely winning one because the ref handed the game to dallas at home. He wasted a #1 seed and mustered only 17 points in a home playoff game. he had plenty of good teams around him and just couldn't get over the hump. he dreamed of being like Favre, except he was nowhere close to being that good. one of the most over rated cowboys ever.

Case in point. Complete obliviousness.

 

[SultanOfSix]

I'm not in the business to read 18 pages of people crying. So I read the title and all I have to say is. Anybody who thinks Dak is better then Romo was has absolutely no clue about football. Also, please don't respond with telling me I'm wrong because I won't respond to you. You're wrong and know nothing about football.

So what you’re saying is Jerry Jones and Jason Garrett know nothing about football. How dare you.

 

[starfan1]

No, it's because they (1) think they're a great franchise even though they've been barely relevant for almost 3 decades, (2) wildly overestimate most of their players, (3) insist that the league office and referees are out to get them, and (4) have an embarrassingly low football IQ in general.

While that's true about most fan bases, it's far more ingrained and widespread here.

those things can be true as well as they are spoiled by 70s and 90s. We are guaranteed nothing. Look at the bright side you could be a Browns fan or a lions fan

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

well, there seems to be a lot of folks here putting in a lot of credence into Terrence Williams and been pumping Romo. but Terrence also said.

Terrance Williams says that Dak Prescott is a better QB than Jalen Hurts

 

[tyke1doe]

That observation, while true, does not offset the fact that Romo saw the field that series. Where is the logic if the longstanding argument has been that the front office retired Romo because of their fear he would suffer severe and permanent life-changing or life-threatening injury?

I am not stating that is something you have ever argued. However, it has been a conversational cornerstone since 2016.

I'm saying it was a combination of factors. Injury isn't the ONLY factor.

But when one considers Dak played well his first season, the Cowboys had just one loss when Romo was ready to return from injury but the Cowboys brass didn't want to upset that continuity with Dak doing so well, Dak was a rookie and was considered the future and his contract was cheaper and Romo hadn't finished the past two seasons without an injury, it just added up to moving on with Dak.

If Dak had stunk up the place, sure, the Cowboys more than likely would have welcomed Romo back as the starter, but that didn't happen.

Everything aligned right for Dak.

At the time, I fully supported the decision to stay with Dak. Now? Well, you know what they say about hindsight.

 

[tyke1doe]

The series should counter any argument concerning the front office and/or Jason Garrett's 'supreme' concern for Tony Romo's health. Any injury can occur at any time regardless whether the opposing defense is composed completely of either college or Hall of Fame all-stars. The nature of football did not change during that particular singular series.

But guys get more injury prone as they age. See Tryon Smith.

 

[WillieBeamen]

All i know is we beat the 49ers with Romo last year


I saw him beat the defending champs by spamming slant routes to Kevin Olgletree of all people. Ceedee, Gallup, and Shultz wouldve been enough

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

those things can be true as well as they are spoiled by 70s and 90s. We are guaranteed nothing. Look at the bright side you could be a Browns fan or a lions fan

And I bet their fan base is worse than we are. There are many Cowboy fans alive today that don't even remember when we were relevant. We are practically the Browns and the Lions. No championship game appearances this century.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

I'm saying it was a combination of factors. Injury isn't the ONLY factor.

But when one considers Dak played well his first season, the Cowboys had just one loss when Romo was ready to return from injury but the Cowboys brass didn't want to upset that continuity with Dak doing so well, Dak was a rookie and was considered the future and his contract was cheaper and Romo hadn't finished the past two seasons without an injury, it just added up to moving on with Dak.

If Dak had stunk up the place, sure, the Cowboys more than likely would have welcomed Romo back as the starter, but that didn't happen.

Everything aligned right for Dak.

At the time, I fully supported the decision to stay with Dak. Now? Well, you know what they say about hindsight.

Romo would have got hurt within a game or two and we'd be on the lookout for our next QB. Maybe we would have been better off. It would end these pointless debates. Of course it would show that the front office knows nothing about picking QBs and lucked out on the last two who both overachieved..

 

[starfan1]

And I bet their fan base is worse than we are. There are many Cowboy fans alive today that don't even remember when we were relevant. We are practically the Browns and the Lions. No championship game appearances this century.

youre not wrong

 

[starfan1]

And I bet their fan base is worse than we are. There are many Cowboy fans alive today that don't even remember when we were relevant. We are practically the Browns and the Lions. No championship game appearances this century.

I agree completely but even the newest of fans Ithink understand our history but you never know

 

[DallasEast]

I'm saying it was a combination of factors. Injury isn't the ONLY factor.

But when one considers Dak played well his first season, the Cowboys had just one loss when Romo was ready to return from injury but the Cowboys brass didn't want to upset that continuity with Dak doing so well, Dak was a rookie and was considered the future and his contract was cheaper and Romo hadn't finished the past two seasons without an injury, it just added up to moving on with Dak.

If Dak had stunk up the place, sure, the Cowboys more than likely would have welcomed Romo back as the starter, but that didn't happen.

Everything aligned right for Dak.

At the time, I fully supported the decision to stay with Dak. Now? Well, you know what they say about hindsight.

Certainly, injury was never the only factor. On the other hand, it has been continually restated and overinflated ad nauseam over the past seven years.

In foresight, I acknowledged Jerry Jones had thrown 100% of his support behind Dak Prescott as his new franchise quarterback by midseason of 2016. Football executives, Jones included, do not make such decisions flippantly. It should also be noted Jones had established a decades old tendency to remain steadfast behind his roster decisions. Quincy Carter made himself an outlier by cutting his own throat.

If there is one thing I could wish for, it is that all those who were swept up within the euphoria of the 2016 season, had stopped and considered hard about the permanent change's ramifications. Doing so would have minimized all the enormous ruing and arguing that followed between then and now, most of all about Prescott's contract.

Practically no one kicks an established franchise quarterback to the curb without believing they have a new franchise quarterback on their roster already. That is how Jones viewed Prescott in October 2016. The likelihood of Jones not paying Prescott a franchise quarterback caliber contract that any of his critics would object to died that month. It was surely cremated when Tony Romo made his concession speech the following month.

It has been sheer insanity reading and hearing some people go nuts about Prescott's contract since then--before, during and after he signed it. I mean. Really. The only way things would have ended differently is if Prescott had suffered a career-ending injury along the way. I get that some people may have regretted the change since then but it has been bewildering witnessing the staggered seven-year delayed reaction.

 

[erod]

those things can be true as well as they are spoiled by 70s and 90s. We are guaranteed nothing. Look at the bright side you could be a Browns fan or a lions fan

Truth is, we kinda are.

 

[erod]

But guys get more injury prone as they age. See Tryon Smith.

.... and Dak Prescott.

 

[starfan1]

Truth is, we kinda are.

No we have 5 rings just because we havent had any success since 96 does not take that away. I mean no one keeps you here right? you have choices? enjoy the ride dude thats all part of it. I just dont get all worked up if we dont make the SBor NFCG its a goal but if it dont happen oh well.

We do have 11th best regular season record in the league since 96 and its even better if you go more recent. The cowboys have been relevant.

https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask/most-wins-by-a-nfl-team-since-1996

 

[DallasEast]

But guys get more injury prone as they age. See Tryon Smith.

lol @ 'injury prone'. People love that term. And I rather see Tyron Smith, just kidding Let's apply the injury prone nomenclature logically to this particular topic:

• Tony Romo was injury prone
• Tony Romo was so injury prone that some people, fans and media alike, continually state to this day that Romo was endanger of suffering paralysis or worse by playing
• Tony Romo was so injury prone that some people stated (and likely believed) Jerry Jones thought the exact same thing and made absolute certain he removed all risk of his former franchise quarterback from suffering a debilitating injury by fully endorsing Dak Prescott as his new starting quarterback

That could be a sound argument. Removing Romo from the field eliminated any risk of Romo suffering another football related injury as a Dallas Cowboy. There is one problem which undermines its intended logical conclusion.

Football is a violent sport. Injuries, including significant ones, do not follow a schedule and can happen to any athlete at any time (refer to Prescott's October 2020 ankle injury as one example).

Logically, Romo cannot step on any football field, during practice or gameday, if anticipated risk of possible injury will result in paralysis or worse.

Additionally, Romo could not remain slotted as the backup quarterback since potential severe injury risk remains if Prescott could not play.

No one can argue injuries do not occur. They happen. They certainly happened to Romo. However, any logical argument that Jones and/or Jason Garrett was 'protecting' Romo for his future physical well-being disintegrated when Romo played that single series against the Eagles. And the same argument has no legs to try and stand itself up again upon by either man keeping Romo on as Prescott's backup. Illogically? Yes. There was plenty of that to go around in 2016. Logically? No.

 

[erod]

No we have 5 rings just because we havent had any success since 96 does not take that away. I mean no one keeps you here right? you have choices? enjoy the ride dude thats all part of it. I just dont get all worked up if we dont make the SBor NFCG its a goal but if it dont happen oh well.

We do have 11th best regular season record in the league since 96 and its even better if you go more recent. The cowboys have been relevant.

https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask/most-wins-by-a-nfl-team-since-1996

Please.

I saw all 5 of them, but if I were 33 years old, I wouldn't be old enough to have seen any of them.

The last time they won, Bill Clinton hadn't met Monica yet, the internet wasn't yet really a thing, and cell phones were still widely considered a gadget in Star Trek.

 

[starfan1]

Please.

I saw all 5 of them, but if I were 33 years old, I wouldn't be old enough to have seen any of them.

The last time they won, Bill Clinton hadn't met Monica yet, the internet wasn't yet really a thing, and cell phones were still widely considered a gadget in Star Trek.

if you want to be a miserable fan be 1 just dont project your misery on others. Those who havent seen the rings have choices as well. We are guaranteed nothing and if you can get pumped for possibilities thats on you. and if you were 33 you would have techinically youd just have been very young

 

[CowboyFrog]

All i know is we beat the 49ers with Romo last year


I saw him beat the defending champs by spamming slant routes to Kevin Olgletree of all people. Ceedee, Gallup, and Shultz wouldve been enough

My God .. I like Romo also but man some of you need to let it go, Romo had chances and didnt beat much less complete teams in the playoffs.. thats just a fact.