CZ POLL Weekly Poll: Do you want Romo to start when healthy or stick with Dak? **ended**

[Elusive6thRing]

He didn't coach against Romo, and is just as likely to flip flop upon seeing a different result since he flip flopped the week before.

Elusive6thRing or Gabe, who has the lower IQ? I'll have to really think that one over for a while.

Are you saying we're the only two on this board that want Dak Prescott to start? You've shown nothing to me that shows you have some high IQ you're actually just like Gabe he goes around talking up Dak and talking down Romo you go around talking up Romo talking down Dak. Are you claiming in some way that everyone who doesn't agree with you has a low IQ? Such as Jimmy Johnson, Ray Lewis, most of the rest of the media? Wow you have some ego.

Also what does coaching against Romo have to do with it? DId you coach for or against Romo? Hell no. Jimmy Johnson coached winning NFL football and got us ring 3, 4 and 5 (don't care of Switzer was the coach that was Jimmy's team) put some respect on that man's name or you're a Romo only fan and not a real Cowboy fan.

 

[TwoDeep3]

People continue to forget that these players are ENTERTAINERS now, period. On television shows, that yes, are scripted.
Second and as I've said before: all of these guys think Tony Romo is one of the worst QBs in the league who leads the league in interceptions and throws 6 game ending picks every year. So of course from their perspective, why would anyone make a switch? To them it's a no brainer. I don't think it's a surprise that the few taking heads who are on Romo's side are coaches who have coached in his era like Billick, Edwards and Mangini that can put his game in the proper perspective.

I mean are people really surprised that Donovan McNabb thinks they should trade Romo when he was one of the first people to cry about his contract? Gee, I'm shocked.

Do you believe in the read react aspect of an offense? Meaning the receiver and the quarterback scan the defense before the ball is snapped and both read the defense and the reaction is what dictates the route? Now coaches speak about this. Perhaps in a different jargon than I assigned to it. But football is truly a game of chess that not only the offensive coordinator is playing, but the pieces themselves have decisions to make for the success of the play.

Now flash back to Marino in the day when he approached the line and indicated by his body language he would spike the ball to stop the clock. They were at or near the goal line. One look to his WR and they both understood what was going to happen.

No worries, I posted it below.

That is an example of chemistry. Not some entertainment aspect you have assigned, but two players see the same thing and understanding the other sees it too. And then executing the play.

Chemistry is recognition and trust. Not some showboating after retirement.

You see this team go to dinner together. Zeke continuing to speak about team and not personal records. Dak stating he is keeping his head down and worrying about what he has to do in the game and not this silly argument being played out here.

This is chemistry building actions.

You have a huge pony in this race. You are a Romo fanatic and it takes precedent over the team. That is fine as long as you know this makes you less of a Cowboy fan and more of a Romo fan.

But your argument, as Mona Lisa Vito once said, "No, the defense's argument doesn't hold water."

 

[Elusive6thRing]

Super_Kazuya has a huge ego (thinks people who don't agree with him have a low IQ) and isn't very smart himself doesn't understand the concept of chemistry at all and pretends it's some made up thing invented in 2016 to put down his favorite QB Romo lol man you're something else.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Do you believe in the read react aspect of an offense? Meaning the receiver and the quarterback scan the defense before the ball is snapped and both read the defense and the reaction is what dictates the route? Now coaches speak about this. Perhaps in a different jargon than I assigned to it. But football is truly a game of chess that not only the offensive coordinator is playing, but the pieces themselves have decisions to make for the success of the play.

Now flash back to Marino in the day when he approached the line and indicated by his body language he would spike the ball to stop the clock. They were at or near the goal line. One look to his WR and they both understood what was going to happen.

No worries, I posted it below.

That is an example of chemistry. Not some entertainment aspect you have assigned, but two players see the same thing and understanding the other sees it too. And then executing the play.

Chemistry is recognition and trust. Not some showboating after retirement.

You see this team go to dinner together. Zeke continuing to speak about team and not personal records. Dak stating he is keeping his head down and worrying about what he has to do in the game and not this silly argument being played out here.

This is chemistry building actions.

You have a huge pony in this race. You are a Romo fanatic and it takes precedent over the team. That is fine as long as you know this makes you less of a Cowboy fan and more of a Romo fan.

But your argument, as Mona Lisa Vito once said, "No, the defenses argument doesn't hold water."

There is no such thing as chemistry. It's just made up. You're a beer gut fan sitting at home, so if it did exist then you sure as heck wouldn't know anything about it. Here is a good definition of "chemistry": chemistry is a made up mystical force that would have one believe that if the Cowboys started Tony Romo against the 0-6 Cleveland Browns, they would lose 42-0 and destroy the entire season. The end.

 

[Elusive6thRing]

You're a beer gut fan sitting at home, so if it did exist then you sure as heck wouldn't know anything about it.

You know you could have said this to yourself and it would make no difference. Stop trying to act like you're smarter and better than everybody you're not. You just have a big ego and you're a beer gut fan sitting at home who doesn't know more about it than someone else but keep pretending it's entertaining.

 

[TwoDeep3]

There is no such thing as chemistry. It's just made up. You're a beer gut fan sitting at home, so if it did exist then you sure as heck wouldn't know anything about it. Here is a good definition of "chemistry": chemistry is a made up mystical force that would have one believe that if the Cowboys started Tony Romo against the 0-6 Cleveland Browns, they would lose 42-0 and destroy the entire season. The end.

I have yet to see the Browns win 42-0 against Romo posted anywhere but in your post. Further, you make straw man arguments to knock down instead of actually supporting your position. Weakness personified.

Further i do not drink beer. My gut was created organically by eating every morsel of food in sight.

Wrong, wrong, wrong..........and w-r-o-n-g, wrong.

 

[wrongway]

Yesterday sealed the deal for me. Dak has to stay in. They'd be nuts to pull him right now. Emphasis on the words RIGHT NOW.

You don't mess with this type of momentum. What would be the point anyway? We've won 5 games in a row for crying out loud. What is Romo going to do - win "better"?

I think we have the best offense in the league right now. The way the playcalling is gelling with the execution is a thing of beauty. You don't mess with that. At this point I say Dak stays in until there's a real reason to pull him. And at this rate, there may never be one.

Could not agree more!

 

[etw926]

11-18

 

[CowboyChris]

what's wrong with beer gut fans? afterall this is football not badminton

 

[Craig]

I dont agree with the idea of going with dak until there is a reason to take him out. If you decide to stick with him, stick with him. You can go back to dak if romo doesnt work but if you decide that dak is your guy then bench him for a couple bad games...i just think thats a horrible way to develop someone.

Id go with romo when he gets to 100%, but whatever they do, make the decision and stick with it.

 

[Proximo]

I dont agree with the idea of going with dak until there is a reason to take him out. If you decide to stick with him, stick with him. You can go back to dak if romo doesnt work but if you decide that dak is your guy then bench him for a couple bad games...i just think thats a horrible way to develop someone.

Id go with romo when he gets to 100%, but whatever they do, make the decision and stick with it.

There'll be no moment when they need to declare that they're sticking with one guy or the other. As long as Dak's playing well then Romo is still "healing and getting back into shape". Dak starts to slip, Romo's now ready. This is called "going back to Romo when he's 100%".

 

[Craig]

There'll be no moment when they need to declare that they're sticking with one guy or the other. As long as Dak's playing well then Romo is still "healing and getting back into shape". Dak starts to slip, Romo's now ready. This is called "going back to Romo when he's 100%".

If dak is the starter in december then everyone will know.

 

[Elusive6thRing]

I dont agree with the idea of going with dak until there is a reason to take him out. If you decide to stick with him, stick with him. You can go back to dak if romo doesnt work but if you decide that dak is your guy then bench him for a couple bad games...i just think thats a horrible way to develop someone.

Id go with romo when he gets to 100%, but whatever they do, make the decision and stick with it.

I'm in the start Dak crowd obviously however unlike most who's on one side or another I use connmon sense last year Denver was a perfect example Peyton looked horrible so they went with Brock then Brock stunk it up they want back to Peyton and won it all. If Dak starts to stink it up for more than one game I have no problem if they switch to Romo. I don't think anything has to be set in stone right now. I don't agree with the idea though of staying with Dak until we simply lose a game he should have the job unless he plays bad for multiple games. If they switch to Romo I'll accept it as well I just hope the guy doesn't suffer a seroius injury that can effect him for his years after football.

 

[Nightman]

I'm in the start Dak crowd obviously however unlike most who's on one side or another I use connmon sense last year Denver was a perfect example Peyton looked horrible so they went with Brock then Brock stunk it up they want back to Peyton and won it all. If Dak starts to stink it up for more than one game I have no problem if they switch to Romo. I don't think anything has to be set in stone right now. I don't agree with the idea though of staying with Dak until we simply lose a game he should have the job unless he plays bad for multiple games. If they switch to Romo I'll accept it as well I just hope the guy doesn't suffer a seroius injury that can effect him for his years after football.

You don't have to tear down Romo to build up Dak... Dak is doing just fine on his own

But he still isn't running the full offense like Tony can.....we are scoring 3pts less than 2014 with Romo

Dak can do some things Tony can't but if he is healthy Tony is still the better QB right now

This is one of those good problems when we look back on last year

 

[Elusive6thRing]

You don't have to tear down Romo to build up Dak... Dak is doing just fine on his own

But he still isn't running the full offense like Tony can.....we are scoring 3pts less than 2014 with Romo

Dak can do some things Tony can't but if he is healthy Tony is still the better QB right now

This is one of those good problems when we look back on last year

I don't understand how am I tearing down Romo to build up Dak? I compared Romo to Peyton in a situation where if Dak plays bad for a few games I say put Romo in, how is that tearing Romo down? I am concerned about Romo's health for his own sake not for Dak's.

 

[Proximo]

If dak is the starter in december then everyone will know.

"Romo's had an unfortunate setback during his recovery".

 

[Old'Boyfan]

"Romo's had an unfortunate setback during his recovery".

I think this is very much how this will all play out. Dak will continue to start while Romo is still "recovering". There may come a time where the team says his recovery is still in progress when in fact he is ready. There is no need to make a public decision, it's just not necessary.

 

[Clove]

• Dan Marino
• Jim Kelly
• Fran Tarkenton
• Dan Fouts
• Warren Moon
• Vinny Testaverde
• Ken Anderson
• Steve McNair

What do these QBs have in common? They are quarterbacks who were great but didn't have what it takes to win Super Bowls. This is Tony Romo to a lessor degree because he's never even made it to the NFC Championship game. I'm betting you could go through each QB and formulate excuses why they didn't win a Super Bowl like Romo fans like to do.
These guys are all over the planet.
You ever have a smart kid in school, that kid goes to a Spelling Bee contest, yet never wins? You have guys who have "It" and guys who don't. There are some guys out there that just knows how to win, and others falter some how, some way, they just never have quite enough to make it to the top. This is Tony Romo.

The guy is a great talent, but not talented enough to win the Super Bowl. You can't explain this stuff, you just have to know it. Is Dak that guy, we don't know yet. What do we know about Dak Prescott? The guy doesn't make many mistakes. What does this mean? It means that if there is a game to win, he's not going to lose it. If there is an NFC Championship game to win, he won't make the mistake to lose it. He may or may not make the play to win it, but you're sure he won't make the play to lose it.

Stay with Dak Prescott. If Jerry goes back to Tony Romo, I suggest we all get on board because when we're in the running to possibly go to a Super Bowl, you need the fan base to support whatever decision that is made. And as much as I'm not a Romo fan, I will support him 100% if they decide to go that way.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

• Dan Marino
• Jim Kelly
• Fran Tarkenton
• Dan Fouts
• Warren Moon
• Vinny Testaverde
• Ken Anderson
• Steve McNair

What do these QBs have in common? They are quarterbacks who were great but didn't have what it takes to win Super Bowls. This is Tony Romo to a lessor degree because he's never even made it to the NFC Championship game. I'm betting you could go through each QB and formulate excuses why they didn't win a Super Bowl like Romo fans like to do.
These guys are all over the planet.
You ever have a smart kid in school, that kid goes to a Spelling Bee contest, yet never wins? You have guys who have "It" and guys who don't. There are some guys out there that just knows how to win, and others falter some how, some way, they just never have quite enough to make it to the top. This is Tony Romo.

The guy is a great talent, but not talented enough to win the Super Bowl. You can't explain this stuff, you just have to know it. Is Dak that guy, we don't know yet. What do we know about Dak Prescott? The guy doesn't make many mistakes. What does this mean? It means that if there is a game to win, he's not going to lose it. If there is an NFC Championship game to win, he won't make the mistake to lose it. He may or may not make the play to win it, but you're sure he won't make the play to lose it.

Stay with Dak Prescott. If Jerry goes back to Tony Romo, I suggest we all get on board because when we're in the running to possibly go to a Super Bowl, you need the fan base to support whatever decision that is made. And as much as I'm not a Romo fan, I will support him 100% if they decide to go that way.

The concept of "this QB has what it takes to win a Super Bowl" is a complete misnomer.

Teams win Super Bowls.

Conversely, Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl. Is he part of the pantheon of QB greats now? No? Why not? If your response contains the word "defense" in it then you've proven my point.

Troy Aikman played fantastic in one of the three 90s Super Bowls. The other two performances were nothing to write home about.

 

[Clove]

The concept of "this QB has what it takes to win a Super Bowl" is a complete misnomer.

Teams win Super Bowls.

Conversely, Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl. Is he part of the pantheon of QB greats now? No? Why not? If your response contains the word "defense" in it then you've proven my point.

Troy Aikman played fantastic in one of the three 90s Super Bowls. The other two performances were nothing to write home about.

He won them, which means he didn't lose them. Have you ever played football? Just wondering.