Cowboys Nostalgia Thread

bbgun said:
Lin Elliott's last game (thank God). I hope Lassic didn't get a ring that year.
Click to expand...
Derrick Lassic. Ahh…

Although Smith signed in time for the third game against the Phoenix Cardinals, Lassic still started and led the team in rushing with 60 yards on 14 carries, while scoring his first 2 touchdowns during a 17–10 win. From that point his workload was significantly reduced, on the way to the Cowboys winning back-to-back Super Bowls.
 
boozeman said:


Just checking if this qualifies as nostalgic yet.
Click to expand...

Players can't see the big picture because of how close to each game they are. This was proof positive that our leadership sucked under Garrett.

Dak was really good for a rookie, but Romo was the guy we needed to finish the year.

Garrett needed to:

a) recognize that you aren't winning jack shat in the playoffs with a rookie. If Dan Marino and Ben Roethlisberger couldn't do it, no way m'fing Dak Prescott was going to. The team was playing out of its mind to support Dak, but Dak was limited in what he could do.

b) prime the team for Romo's eventual return

He did none of that because he got swept up in the "4" nonsense. I also think that carrot-topped shit got arrogant and was happy that "4", unlike 9, just did whatever the fuck Garrett told him to do.
 
ravidubey said:
He did none of that because he got swept up in the "4" nonsense. I also think that carrot-topped shit got arrogant and was happy that "4", unlike 9, just did whatever the fuck Garrett told him to do.
Click to expand...
I'll always believe one factor was that Garrett knew he didn't have a lot of rope left with Romo after so many years, but a new rookie QB would give him more leeway if they lost... a sort of re-starting of the clock. He thought the new guy would buy him a few more years.
 
  • Props
Reactions: p1_
ravidubey said:
Players can't see the big picture because of how close to each game they are. This was proof positive that our leadership sucked under Garrett.

Dak was really good for a rookie, but Romo was the guy we needed to finish the year.

Garrett needed to:

a) recognize that you aren't winning jack shat in the playoffs with a rookie. If Dan Marino and Ben Roethlisberger couldn't do it, no way m'fing Dak Prescott was going to. The team was playing out of its mind to support Dak, but Dak was limited in what he could do.

b) prime the team for Romo's eventual return

He did none of that because he got swept up in the "4" nonsense. I also think that carrot-topped shit got arrogant and was happy that "4", unlike 9, just did whatever the fuck Garrett told him to do.
Click to expand...
agreed. We missed a golden opportunity that season.
 
Because Romo would’ve helped the defense give up less than 34 points to the Packers? Would Romo have made Jeff Heath get the fumble on the blindside Rodgers sack?

Dak Prescott secured the #1 seed. Romo can’t do better than that.
In the game itself, Dak Prescott and the offense scored 31 points with Prescott putting up 103 QB rating.

Romo’s playoff play hadn’t been lights out Aikman-like. Romo 2014 vs Detroit at home was also slow start. Romo may have performed better in the playoff game than Prescott, but Prescott’s play that day didn’t leave much room for much better compared to what Romo had shown.

Furthermore, how confident are you Romo is healthy for the playoffs if he assumed starter at Week ~11? Got injured twice in 2015, preseason 2016 injury and injury missed do-or-die Week 17 in 2013.

Back to Witten, this isn’t the opinion of a scorn Patrick Crayton or TO, Witten was Romo’s BFF and has little incentive to artificially prop up Prescott over Tony. Leadership is a QB trait, one that we ballyhoo for Aikman and Staubach, and if Witten says Prescott won over the locker room, who are we to dismiss that.

I would love for Romo to have led us to a Super Bowl in 2016, but I can’t say it’s anywhere near a definitively better decision to have gone with Romo instead. I’d guess that we’d probably end up with the same Packers loss.
 
Last edited:
data said:
Because Romo would’ve helped the defense give up less than 34 points to the Packers?

Dak Prescott secured the #1 seed. Romo can’t do better than that.
In the game itself, Dak Prescott and the offense scored 31 points with Prescott putting up 103 QB rating.

Romo’s playoff play hadn’t been lights out Aikman-like. Romo 2014 vs Detroit at home was also slow start. Romo may have performed better in the playoff game than Prescott, but Prescott’s play that day didn’t leave much room for much better compared to what Romo had shown.

Furthermore, how confident are you Romo is healthy for the playoffs if he assumed starter at Week ~11? Got injured twice in 2015, preseason 2016 injury and injury missed do-or-die Week 17 in 2013.

Back to Witten, this isn’t the opinion of a scorn Patrick Crayton or TO, Witten was Romo’s BFF and has little incentive to artificially prop up Prescott over Tony. Leadership is a QB trait, one that we ballyhoo for Aikman and Staubach, and if Witten says Prescott won over the locker room, who are we to dismiss that.

I would love for Romo to have led us to a Super Bowl in 2016, but I can’t say it’s anywhere near a clearly better decision to have gone with Romo instead.
Click to expand...

Romo gave you the best chance to beat the best competition.

Dak spiked it, Romo goes for it.

Even things like running the huddle. Refs saw a confused huddle and called a once in a lifetime penalty. Romo had no tolerance for people not lining up right in the huddle and waved people back all the time. The refs just want to see a well-run huddle. Dak as a rookie, he assumed everyone knew what they were doing.

Romo would throw contested passes if needed, Dak threw only to the open guy, period.

It got to the point where we were posting in the game chat for Garrett to stop calling passes. Does that sound like something you want to do when your QB is nailing it?

Yeah each play it's a subtle difference, but it adds up. Frankly, I think with Romo Dallas wins that game by 10.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom