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

Rev

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
19,333
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.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,713
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.
2007, 2009, 2014

He has had his chances.
 

Simpleton

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
17,414
Aside from the theoretical discussion of experience vs. the present, how can anybody justify replacing a QB that is on a 5-6+ game winning streak, no matter the situation, let alone the guy you want to replace him with hasn't been able to make it through two straight games since the beginning of last year?

A few weeks ago I said let's see what happens against the Bengals/Packers, thinking that we would definitely lose one of them, if not both and it would make much more sense to bring Romo back against the Eagles or Browns, but if we beat the Eagles?

On top of demolishing two perennial playoff teams and being on a 6 game winning streak?

Logic would at least dictate that you let it run until we lose.
 

p1_

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
26,455
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.
Not to mention former coaches who have been asked. They to a man vote Dak.
 

Rev

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
19,333
2007, 2009, 2014

He has had his chances.
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.
 

Simpleton

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
17,414
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 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.

The 2009 team was the one with a horrific OL.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,464
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.

2009 we were 11-5 and had a really elite defense as well.
 

Simpleton

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
17,414
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.
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.

Taking Romo out of the equation I think 2007 has a very slight advantage over 2014 due to the defense, while 2009 was clearly the worst of the three.

2014 Romo takes the 2007 roster to the Super Bowl, although the competition in the 2014 playoffs was higher than that in the 2007 playoffs in my opinion.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
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.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,464
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.
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.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
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.
Great Avy.:lol
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
So this what it's like to have a full blown QB controversy.

And to top it off we don't suck.

 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,483
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.
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.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,483
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.
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.
 

Simpleton

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
17,414
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.
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.

The line was very good in 2007 but by 2009 it was starting to teeter as they all started to age, Gurode/Davis got fat and lazy and grinders like Kosier and Colombo just weren't that good once age started to catch up with them a bit.
 

ravidubey

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20,162
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.
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.

RO was nice in the redzone to start the year, but since week one IMO (and clearly in Green Bay) it's actually slowed us down closer to the goal-line if anything. That extra second delay on the part of the QB neutralizes the benefit. Long term we're much more effective either handing it off or passing -- no matter who the QB is.

Outside the goal-line, Prescott's 3.4 YPC rushing isn't a factor. Romo ran read option multiple times the last two years. It's mainly an option to pass or hand off, and the real threat NFL-wide (outside of Russell Wilson) is a handoff pulled back that turns into a pass into zones the LB's vacate.

Read option is mainly for crippled passing offenses with limited QB's anyways. Washington and San Francisco 2012. Seattle then and since. It has and always will remain a niche gimmick. Washington fans flat out jizzed themselves thinking about how it was going to permanently change the NFL back in 2012. Look at them now, minus their "franchise" QB and all those draft picks.

Nothing beats passing from the pocket, and that's been proven time and again.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,464
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.
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.
 
Top Bottom