When Romo is completely healthy, who do you play?

When Romo is completely healthy, who do you play?

  • Dak

    Votes: 36 90.0%
  • Tony

    Votes: 4 10.0%

  • Total voters
    40

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Actually it just shows a lack of respect for an opinion. IF you tell me it's your opinion that pigs can fly, I'll also call that crazy.

[/Frankly I'm surprised that 4 people on this board are dumb enough to want to bench a QB with a 100 + QB rating who is 5-1 and coming off a big time win in one of the toughest stadiums to play. I guess I'll just chalk it up to blind loyalty but it's pretty crazy to me

Try this on and see if you are addressing the idea or the people.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
Yeah, but it isn't crazy to give the starting QB job to someone who is 15-4 in their last 19 starts... it is more like you bring disingenuous to make a point.
Compare their stats in their last 6 starts and get back to me. You'll see the clear winner.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
Well you keep wanting to include those 2015 "wins" so why not include the stats?
Cause Romo was a one man show with no running game so of course it skews the stats down and it's not a fair comparison to someone who has the league's best running game.

But we can take out 2015 wins and then Romo was just a mere 12-3. :lol
 

22cowboysfan22

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
2,987
There really shouldn't be any debate at this point with the way that Dak's playing. I love Romo as much as anyone and think he's one of the most underrated QBs of all time (he's been a far better QB than a guy like Eli Manning for example, yet Eli has a shot at the Hall of Fame due to the Manning name and his 2 SB rings, whereas Romo has almost no shot at getting in unless he comes back and wins a SB of his own). That said, right now, Dak is a better QB than Romo. Romo is 36, hasn't played regularly since 2014, and we really think he's going to go out there and perform better than Dak is right now? Dak allows us to do more on offense, with read-options, roll outs and the like that we can't do with Romo under center.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,486
I've always said I want to minimize the amount of QB switches. I think it just screws with the whole team to flop between QBs. So obviously the least amount of QB switches would be to stick with Dak until he gives me a reason to do otherwise. That way you don't risk switching to Romo. Then switching back to Dak and having your team offensively changing course multiple times.
That's a good point.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,486
Frankly I'm surprised that 4 people on this board are dumb enough to want to bench a QB with a 100 + QB rating who is 5-1 and coming off a big time win in one of the toughest stadiums to play. I guess I'll just chalk it up to blind loyalty but it's pretty crazy to me.
It's not blind loyalty; people are amazed because he's a rookie playing beyond his years, but he's not putting up any numbers that Romo hasn't, and hasn't reached the ceiling that Romo has on many occasions.

Meanwhile Dak has turned the ball over 3 times in the past two games, but people are excusing that because their narrative is set.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,754
It's not blind loyalty; people are amazed because he's a rookie playing beyond his years, but he's not putting up any numbers that Romo hasn't, and hasn't reached the ceiling that Romo has on many occasions.

Meanwhile Dak has turned the ball over 3 times in the past two games, but people are excusing that because their narrative is set.
How many times has Romo had a 5-1 team?

Not many times.

The wins are getting people excited. The new energy is getting people excited.

Look, I understand both sides and frankly, I know what I want may not be congruent with what the team does.

And I don't even know if or what we will use as a criteria. I just ask that it is not for a sentimental reason other than a football reason. There are a lot of things we are doing right now and winning with that Romo couldn't pull off.

But I think it is patently dumb to look at things emotionally and especially bring in Romo's body of work as some sort of prize.

I know we all love to say he's great and an all timer, I don't see him that way.

I remember when Landry benched Danny White, all kinds of asses were chapped then and he had just as many skins on the wall, if not more.

Thing is Landry put in Hogeboom and then Pelluer.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,486
Actually it just shows a lack of respect for an opinion. IF you tell me it's your opinion that pigs can fly, I'll also call that crazy.
That's not an apt comparison. It's a fact that pigs can't fly.

No matter how much you want to make a person's preference of two choices a fact, it simply isn't.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,486
How many times has Romo had a 5-1 team?

Not many times.

The wins are getting people excited. The new energy is getting people excited.

Look, I understand both sides and frankly, I know what I want may not be congruent with what the team does.

And I don't even know if or what we will use as a criteria. I just ask that it is not for a sentimental reason other than a football reason. There are a lot of things we are doing right now and winning with that Romo couldn't pull off.

But I think it is patently dumb to look at things emotionally and especially bring in Romo's body of work as some sort of prize.

I know we all love to say he's great and an all timer, I don't see him that way.

I remember when Landry benched Danny White, all kinds of asses were chapped then and he had just as many skins on the wall, if not more.

Thing is he put in Hogeboom and then Pelluer.
I was pissed as hell they put in Hogeboom, and in retrospect that was the right reaction because he was never anywhere close to as good as White.

But Dak has already shown he's better than Hogeboom and Pelluer ever were so here we are.

How many 5-1 starts Romo has had is irrelevant. I highly doubt Dak would have started 5-1 with that 2010 team, for instance. So a lot of this is apples to oranges.

But what I know is is 15-4 in his last 19 games, and the club is 1-12 in that same time period without him. It's clear he's been doing something right.
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,931
Does anybody here think Dak would have us at 5-1 without Zeke? Dak has been great, but I give far more credit to our running game than I do our QB play for where we stand right now. People are acting like Dak has put the team on his shoulders and drug them kicking and screaming to the 5-1 record.
 

UncleMilti

This seemed like a good idea at the time.
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
17,981
These athletes don't play hard for leaders they don't respect. Not saying Romo is not respected, but he hasn't been a vocal guy..ever.

Booze said it best, these guys are a team...there is an energy there that I don't believe any of us have seen in a long long time. Guys are playing for each other, instead of pointing fingers and making excuses.

No matter the QB...theres things outside of throwing and handing off the football that you can see with Dak when he's on the field.

Personally, the way I see it who gives a shit what Romo did in 2014. 2 seasons is a long time ago.

The NFL is about what you are doing right now...and right now, Dak is killing it, and so is Zeke. You just don't tempt fate by killing the momentum.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,754
I was pissed as hell they put in Hogeboom, and in retrospect that was the right reaction because he was never anywhere close to as good as White.

But Dak has already shown he's better than Hogeboom and Pelluer ever were so here we are.

How many 5-1 starts Romo has had is irrelevant. I highly doubt Dak would have started 5-1 with that 2010 team, for instance. So a lot of this is apples to oranges.

But what I know is is 15-4 in his last 19 games, and the club is 1-12 in that same time period without him. It's clear he's been doing something right.
This is a season by season league anymore.

It is hard for those of us that have seen sustained greatness.

This has been a grueling journey since the early 1990s.

We are not used to having winning teams, not just superstars.

We are a winning team now. I think you ride the shit out of it until it just isn't.

And if Romo is really just this great player that needed a supporting cast, he will take care of business.

I just don't want to force anything.

There is no reason to unless you are a sentimental sap that thinks we owe Romo the "opportunity" to guide a team to the promised land.

It is not an insult to Romo that at the end of the day, his entire career was squandered by his supporting cast.

That is on Jones. On Garrett.

To overlook tangible, right now results to try to correct the organizational errors that have exists during his career is just dumb.

Believe it or not, I still think the jury is out on Prescott. Still more to go.

But I also am not going to pretend Romo is something he's not, especially since he is basically a cripple now, based on our dependency.

Jones is addicted to Romo bailing him out. We are used to it, so is the team.

We are going through a fresh rehab session right now.

I know this might now be popular, but I see Romo now how Manning was last year.

Was he the catalyst that propelled them to a title?
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
That's not an apt comparison. It's a fact that pigs can't fly.

No matter how much you want to make a person's preference of two choices a fact, it simply isn't.
Saying that no matter what Dak does Romo should start is a factually flawed argument.
 

hstour

Brand New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
625
Yeah I sort of remember that but that games sort of encompasses Romo in his career. He can be absolutely magical at times. But he also every once in awhile has a total and complete stinker of a game where he doesn't and can't do anything right. That Vikings game he had 3 fumbles, 1 pick and 8 sacks. The O-line may have been bad but some of that has to go on the QB. You can't win a playoff game if Romo has a stinker. So you have to hope that Romo goes on a hot streak just at the perfect time.
I don't understand how you blame the QB when Flozell goes down and the OL is the unit that throws up the "complete stinker."

Tony didn't have time to do anything once Allen started abusing Free and Ray Edwards looked like an All-Pro.

When you QB doesn't have time to think, much less react, I just don't see how you put any of that on the QB.
 
Top Bottom