22cowboysfan22
Brand New Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2013
- Messages
- 2,987
No surprise here:
Yep and I obviously think we will beat the Browns. Do you think we will bench our starting QB if we are 7-1?No surprise here:
Yep and I obviously think we will beat the Browns. Do you think we will bench our starting QB if we are 7-1?
I don't think Tony will be 100% ready to play for the better part of a month.Yep and I obviously think we will beat the Browns. Do you think we will bench our starting QB if we are 7-1?
Regardless, you can't take Dak out unless he just falls apart or hits a wall.I don't think Tony will be 100% ready to play for the better part of a month.
We'll see then.
In case people have somehow missed it, there's a lot more to this team than the QB.
I completely believe in Dak. I only think he is not as experienced as Romo. Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe he's learning enough to win it all. I think experience will come to matter in the playoffs.Regardless, you can't take Dak out unless he just falls apart or hits a wall.
9 out of 10 people that are asked all come back to the same thing -- you can't take him out if the team is playing this week and he personally is playing well along with them.
Those guys believe in him, and Witten's personal moment with him after the TD is very telling in regards to what this locker room thinks of him.
I know you want Romo in there really bad, but you have to see what is being built right now. You can't buy that kind of chemistry and it's that team belief and unity that those talented, but flawed teams from 2008-2013 didn't have.
Romo needs to keep on working to get as strong as possible because we may just need him. Maybe Dak does hit a wall and we need Romo to save the day. But for now, Dak needs to remain the guy.
All fair points.I completely believe in Dak. I only think he is not as experienced as Romo. Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe he's learning enough to win it all. I think experience will come to matter in the playoffs.
I think the chemistry on the team extends far beyond the QB. I can't see into the locker room to tell how much any of it has been created by or because of Dak.
I know the team has rallied to support him, but the key word is team. I'm sure they'll rally around Romo too, unless Romo can't do his job well enough (in which case we have Dak).
I want to beat the Patriots, and the Eagles gave us a taste of what we can expect from Belichick.
When that game happens, I want the QB that gives us the best chance to win with the fewest weaknesses to be exploited on the field.
Even AL Michael's says "Elliot gets knocked down" on the call. Have to figure that it isn't legal to do that but then again with as flag happy as this crew is how do they miss that? If it is legal then why aren't we knocking every receiver on their butt in the first 5 yards???Go rewatch the game winning touchdown pass -- highlights are everywhere online -- and watch Elliott get leveled coming out of the backfield. Is that legal as a hit within 5 yards? Seems wrong.
If you tackle them it's defensive holding. If you jam them and knock them down I don't think there is anything illegal about it. I'm sure it could have been called. But those officials weren't doing us any favors last night.Even AL Michael's says "Elliot gets knocked down" on the call. Have to figure that it isn't legal to do that but then again with as flag happy as this crew is how do they miss that? If it is legal then why aren't we knocking every receiver on their butt in the first 5 yards???
That wasn't "jamming" him though, he ran into Elliot's back and barreled him over from behind. Why not just shove every receiver from behind to knock them off their routes within 5 yards? If a receiver runs a slant, why not just shove them from behind as soon as they get an inside step on you? Seems dirty.If you tackle them it's defensive holding. If you jam them and knock them down I don't think there is anything illegal about it. I'm sure it could have been called. But those officials weren't doing us any favors last night.
After seeing the replay I think it's easily defensive holding. He wasn't jamming anyone. He came up and decided to try and knock a receivers block off from behind. Obviously if the ball was in the air it would be pass interference.That wasn't "jamming" him though, he ran into Elliot's back and barreled him over from behind. Why not just shove every receiver from behind to knock them off their routes within 5 yards? If a receiver runs a slant, why not just shove them from behind as soon as they get an inside step on you? Seems dirty.
It was a legal chuck because it was within 5 yards.After seeing the replay I think it's easily defensive holding. He wasn't jamming anyone. He came up and decided to try and knock a receivers block off from behind. Obviously if the ball was in the air it would be pass interference.
So to answer Schittys question when a guy runs a crossing you're you are free to just light him up if he is running within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage? I don't think that is correct.It was a legal chuck because it was within 5 yards.
It was a very lazy route by Elliott.
Yes it is and it happens a lot more often than you think.So to answer Schittys question when a guy runs a crossing you're you are free to just light him up if he is running within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage? I don't think that is correct.
I've seen this come up on screen passes before where defenders just blow the RB up before the screen pass is thrown and those have ended in defensive holding calls.