You're basically sayimg that Romo is so rusty that he isn't capable of starting right now. So what you will do is start him to knock off the rust, so that he can be a capable backup.Again, what are you basing this on, though?
This is not something you see done around the NFL often. Heck, I don't recall EVER seeing an NFL take this approach to their backup QB situation regardless of who that backup was.
So where do you get this idea that this is A) A good thing to do and B) Is necessary when no one else has ever done it or paid for not doing it?
Yeah, that's the feel I get, as well.Your arguments today just reek of a delusional super fan who's struggling to come to grips with the inevitable.
That's the thing -- there's no precedent for this.LT, your arguments today feel like a last ditch effort to justify starting Romo. Before today it was your belief that Dak would come back down to earth and hold back the Cowboys' offense. Now that we're 6 weeks into the season with Dak player better each week, you've shifted to this asinine argument that a backup QB should start a game in order to get into game shape. I've been watching football for over 30 years and have NEVER seen a HC even entertain something as foolish as that.
Your arguments today just reek of a delusional super fan who's struggling to come to grips with the inevitable.
Da Fuck?I have no problem with Prescott at QB. My issue is and has been that Romo needs to be conditioned as quickly as possible even to the point of playing in order to have a viable backup in place. Dallas is very vulnerable now simply because if Prescott is injured they are screwed. As soon as Romo is ready he needs to be inserted in the lineup to get prepared. The season is still young and there are a lot of games left in the season. It is irresponsible for the organization to allow this situation to go unanswered and not be addressed.
It will entail Romo starting some games to come about but it is necessary. If he craters then it will address the other issue of how to deal with his career in Dallas.
No shit. Where is proven precedent for such a whack line of logic? Why on earth would you do that? Makes no sense.That's the thing -- there's no precedent for this.
No one in the 36 years I've been alive has ever played a backup over a starter for the reason LT has suggested.
~Looks awkwardly away from LT~
He has made his position clear so that's that.That's the thing -- there's no precedent for this.
No one in the 36 years I've been alive has ever played a backup over a starter for the reason LT has suggested.
What the hell is happening?
A 4 game lead in the win loss record would give Romo the time to "come up to speed" should he be called upon. You can lose a game while he "knocks off the rust."
And If you have 4th quarter 14 point leads (as they have the last two games) then you can let Romo come in for Dak to do the same.
What the hell is happening?
I'm still not 100% sure.What the hell is happening?
That's a general approach that will cover the contingency. What is being lost in all this is that most backups are practicing all the time and have exposure to game plans and schemes from week to week. Romo hasn't seen the field of any kind for almost a year.A 4 game lead in the win loss record would give Romo the time to "come up to speed" should he be called upon. You can lose a game while he "knocks off the rust."
And If you have 4th quarter 14 point leads (as they have the last two games) then you can let Romo come in for Dak to do the same.
You are intrerpreting it wrong. It's a suggestion to reduce the exposure to the team being vunerable. This situation is a little different from most backup situations. Romo hasn't touched a football in practice conditions for almost a year so that's not the run of the mill back up program most teams have.LT, your arguments today feel like a last ditch effort to justify starting Romo. Before today it was your belief that Dak would come back down to earth and hold back the Cowboys' offense. Now that we're 6 weeks into the season with Dak player better each week, you've shifted to this asinine argument that a backup QB should start a game in order to get into game shape. I've been watching football for over 30 years and have NEVER seen a HC even entertain something as foolish as that.
Your arguments today just reek of a delusional super fan who's struggling to come to grips with the inevitable.