- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 19,471
Yes but those chances weren't with a stacked deck. I'm convinced with remaining with Dak but Tony didn't get the pieces he deserved until 2014 and now.He has had 10 years worth of chances.
Yes but those chances weren't with a stacked deck. I'm convinced with remaining with Dak but Tony didn't get the pieces he deserved until 2014 and now.He has had 10 years worth of chances.
2007, 2009, 2014Yes but those chances weren't with a stacked deck. I'm convinced with remaining with Dak but Tony didn't get the pieces he deserved until 2014 and now.
Not to mention former coaches who have been asked. They to a man vote Dak.I haven't seen one former player say they would play Romo. Everyone from Favre to Aikman to Staubach. Just heard Greg Jennings on the radio chime in that he'd stick with Dak.
Athletes are very superstitious beings. I don't think anyone wants to mess with something that's working this well.
it is not a valid opinion.
I said 2014 but those other teams were paper tigers and we all said it then. He didn't have the Oline or RB that he has now to make it.2007, 2009, 2014
He has had his chances.
The 2007 team had a solid OL and strong running game, especially in the playoff game against the Giants. The defense was better than the 2014 one as well, the problem was Owens getting hurt and Romo was still a bit of a dumbfuck at that point. Put 2014 Romo on that 2007 team and they're probably in the Super Bowl.I said 2014 but those other teams were paper tigers and we all said it then. He didn't have the Oline or RB that he has now to make it.
You really think 2007 was a paper tiger? We were 13-3 and had an elite defense.I said 2014 but those other teams were paper tigers and we all said it then. He didn't have the Oline or RB that he has now to make it.
The problem in 2007 was the Owens injury and that Romo was still making dumb mistakes, in 2009 it was the OL even though that team had the best defense of the three, in 2014 Romo was at his peak and we had a far better running game/OL, but the worst defense of the three teams.You really think 2007 was a paper tiger? We were 13-3 and had an elite defense.
2009 we were 11-5 and had a really elite defense as well.
2007 was Romo's best team, and when he came up shortest. That 2009 o line got humiliated by the Vikings, I think Romo got sacked 8 times. So I think it's safe to say in that game the team let him down.You really think 2007 was a paper tiger? We were 13-3 and had an elite defense.
2009 we were 11-5 and had a really elite defense as well.
That's the thing....we don't HAVE to do anything.It could but unfortunately that's the risk you have to take to see if Romo is done or not;.
Yes Jerry WILL just because of the romantic notion. It would be like "winning one for John".That's the thing....we don't HAVE to do anything.
Yeah I can't remember who was our O-line back in 2009 but any time a QB goes down 8 times I have to wonder if our play calling is F'd up or if my QB is just not getting the ball out quick enough. I remember that game thinking that Romo just was not seeing and making adjustments.2007 was Romo's best team, and when he came up shortest. That 2009 o line got humiliated by the Vikings, I think Romo got sacked 8 times. So I think it's safe to say in that game the team let him down.
Great Avy.Dak stays the starter.
You stay with the hot hand. I appreciate all that romo has done but Dak gives us too many options on offense, and I think the coaching staff has to think now and not hope romo bails them out.
I never said it doesn't work the other way around. Just saying what makes sense to me. We're in a great spot either way.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.
While those things are true, that doesn't affect the bottom line as we saw in 2014. You can change some things on how we play on offense and still be successful and in fact very successful. I think odds are that we would be at least as successful with Romo. And as far as this season is concerned at least, the ceiling under Romo should be higher.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.
Flozell, Davis, Gurode, Kosier, Colombo. Flozell went down in the Vikings game, Free came in at LT and it was a mess, if I'm remembering correctly.Yeah I can't remember who was our O-line back in 2009 but any time a QB goes down 8 times I have to wonder if our play calling is F'd up or if my QB is just not getting the ball out quick enough. I remember that game thinking that Romo just was not seeing and making adjustments.
That's it!? Read option is what you have? Because I'm not buying that Romo didn't use play-action passes when Murray was here.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.
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.I never said it doesn't work the other way around. Just saying what makes sense to me. We're in a great spot either way.