So you're entire argument is that Dak is a rookie therefore it doesn't matter how good he plays, you don't want him to start over Romo? If that's your stance it's flawed and it is not a valid opinion. It's that simple. Experience doesn't trump all other factors when it comes to QB play.I am of the opinion that I'd still rather a ten year starter who was 2nd in the MVP race last time he played a full season be my QB for the home stretch and playoffs for a team that looks like it can make noise.
If you think that is not a valid opinion, even if you personally disagree, then it is time you re-assess your own assumptions about the facts of this situation, cause you are the one being ridiculous.
Romo, this season.I just boil it down to the Super Bowl.
Who would you rather have under center when the championship is on the line?
You have to have a QB who can get you there. I'll take the QB who is consistently good because that's what you need in order to win consistently in the playoffs against the NFL best.I just boil it down to the Super Bowl.
Who would you rather have under center when the championship is on the line?
No, that is not my entire argument. My entire argument, as I already said, is that I am more comfortable with a ten year starting veteran who was 2nd Place in the MVP voting in his last full season, and I'll throw in 15-4 overall in his last two seasons. If you want to read between the lines I am saying in crunch time I still trust that more. Experience doesn't trump all other factors but I am taking into account other factors and in my mind Romo still has the edge.So you're entire argument is that Dak is a rookie therefore it doesn't matter how good he plays, you don't want him to start over Romo? If that's your stance it's flawed and it is not a valid opinion. It's that simple. Experience doesn't trump all other factors when it comes to QB play.
No kidding, hell I don't think he would survive the Eagles game if he played in that one either.Romo isn't going to survive the Vikings game if he even makes it that far so it's whatever.
The risk you brought up, and I responded to, is the risk that inserting Romo could mess up this run.How can there be zero risk if there's no guarantee that Romo is the same guy physically that we saw in 2014?
Also, this isn't the same team man-for-man that it was in 2014. There are new faces and young guys that have no history with Romo and they may not like Dak being pulled when he's playing so well.
There is definitely some risk to inserting him back in just cause and it's a risk that almost everyone, including former Cowboys, do not believe the team should take.
1-2 over the net three games could absolutely sink the season. 2 losses could easily be the difference between playoffs or no playoffs. Between Division Champs and not Division champs. And specifically it would kill our chances at a first round bye.The funny thing is if Dak is really the revelation that they say he is, he will have this job back from Tony in no time. All I want to do is give Tony his deserved chance; which if you think he's washed up is simply the rope to hang himself. A 1-2 record over three games isn't gonna sink the season. It's worth finding out what we still have in Romo.
Yep.Where is everyone getting this incorrect idea that Romo can't do better than Prescott? Does going 6-4 down the stretch but winning two playoff games count as doing better or worse? We are comparing apples and oranges because Romo isn't gonna play the same 6 games Prescott has.
I am of the opinion that I'd still rather a ten year starter who was 2nd in the MVP race last time he played a full season be my QB for the home stretch and playoffs for a team that looks like it can make noise.
If you think that is not a valid opinion, even if you personally disagree, then it is time you re-assess your own assumptions about the facts of this situation, cause you are the one being ridiculous.
He has had 10 years worth of chances.No, that is not my entire argument. My entire argument, as I already said, is that I am more comfortable with a ten year starting veteran who was 2nd Place in the MVP voting in his last full season, and I'll throw in 15-4 overall in his last two seasons. If you want to read between the lines I am saying in crunch time I still trust that more. Experience doesn't trump all other factors but I am taking into account other factors and in my mind Romo still has the edge.
The funny thing is if Dak is really the revelation that they say he is, he will have this job back from Tony in no time. All I want to do is give Tony his deserved chance; which if you think he's washed up is simply the rope to hang himself. A 1-2 record over three games isn't gonna sink the season. It's worth finding out what we still have in Romo.
While I agree with most of what you said here, I think one key factor in all of this is that Romo does not really seem comfortable with, nor does he particularly enjoy running play-action. Right now the play-action stuff is a huge part of our success, from the second Beasley TD to the huge Whitehead catch on 3rd and 1, to the near Butler 50 yard bomb.The risk you brought up, and I responded to, is the risk that inserting Romo could mess up this run.
There is zero risk of that. When Romo is healthy it's very likely he'll play at the same high level as he has for a decade. And if somehow he doesn't, or he gets reinjured, you simply put Dak in again.
If any of that gets messed up, then we aren't as good as we think and it was getting messed up eventually anyway.
If we believe that we are a super bowl contender, and right now we look like one, then logic dictates you go with the experience and decade long track record of high quality play.
Because speaking of risks, there's certainly a risk that the other shoe drops with Dak like it did with Wentz. I don't believe that'll happen with Dak, but the risk of him faltering is no lower than the risk that Romo has somehow lost it.
Frankly, from what I've seen, Elliot and the offensive line are the foundations of this offense anyway, and I don't see that diminishing whether it's Dak or Romo.
Maybe Romo in 2014. I think we all agree that Romo played as well as he ever has that year, but as I'm sure has been mentioned on the site several times...he's broken his back and collarbone twice since then.Romo, this season.
If that happens you put Romo in. Risk averted. Not sure why it's ok to expect Dak to just come back in and save the day if Romo falters but it doesn't work the other way around. And then you save the team from swapping starters multiple times during the season. Which would be patently retarded.Because speaking of risks, there's certainly a risk that the other shoe drops with Dak like it did with Wentz. I don't believe that'll happen with Dak, but the risk of him faltering is no lower than the risk that Romo has somehow lost it.
Especially with how the rest of the division is playing so far this year.1-2 over the net three games could absolutely sink the season. 2 losses could easily be the difference between playoffs or no playoffs. Between Division Champs and not Division champs. And specifically it would kill our chances at a first round bye.
The kind of runs absolutely will change.The risk you brought up, and I responded to, is the risk that inserting Romo could mess up this run.
There is zero risk of that. When Romo is healthy it's very likely he'll play at the same high level as he has for a decade. And if somehow he doesn't, or he gets reinjured, you simply put Dak in again.
If any of that gets messed up, then we aren't as good as we think and it was getting messed up eventually anyway.
If we believe that we are a super bowl contender, and right now we look like one, then logic dictates you go with the experience and decade long track record of high quality play.
Because speaking of risks, there's certainly a risk that the other shoe drops with Dak like it did with Wentz. I don't believe that'll happen with Dak, but the risk of him faltering is no lower than the risk that Romo has somehow lost it.
Frankly, from what I've seen, Elliot and the offensive line are the foundations of this offense anyway, and I don't see that diminishing whether it's Dak or Romo.
That's pretty much what I have been saying as well albeit from a team risk vantage point. It's really amazing how the attitude seems to be a Dak or Romo only and only one can now be worth having. The other is crap. Life is funny that way.The risk you brought up, and I responded to, is the risk that inserting Romo could mess up this run.
There is zero risk of that. When Romo is healthy it's very likely he'll play at the same high level as he has for a decade. And if somehow he doesn't, or he gets reinjured, you simply put Dak in again.
If any of that gets messed up, then we aren't as good as we think and it was getting messed up eventually anyway.
If we believe that we are a super bowl contender, and right now we look like one, then logic dictates you go with the experience and decade long track record of high quality play.
Because speaking of risks, there's certainly a risk that the other shoe drops with Dak like it did with Wentz. I don't believe that'll happen with Dak, but the risk of him faltering is no lower than the risk that Romo has somehow lost it.
Frankly, from what I've seen, Elliot and the offensive line are the foundations of this offense anyway, and I don't see that diminishing whether it's Dak or Romo.
Timestamped?The kind of runs absolutely will change.
The read oprion goes away. The threat of Prescott running goes away. I bet play action passing is also affected since we rarely did it, even when Murray was here. So to say there is zero risk is not exactly accurate.