Dez Watch Thread...

boozeman said:
Because you can't field a shorthanded roster based on hope that someone gets a miracle heal.

Romo was the more logical of the two.
Click to expand...

You're fielding the same number of players as the other team. You have seven inactive players every week. Is it really handicapping a team to have 2 of those inactive guys as Romo and Dez? I guess the Cowboys think there is no chance Romo will be back before 8 weeks. I guess I'm just wondering why, since other QBs with the same injury have taken less time. The only thing I can think of is that the Cowboys are basing his timeline off the first time he broke his collarbone.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
You're fielding the same number of players as the other team. You have seven inactive players every week. Is it really handicapping a team to have 2 of those inactive guys as Romo and Dez? I guess the Cowboys think there is no chance Romo will be back before 8 weeks. I guess I'm just wondering why, since other QBs with the same injury have taken less time. The only thing I can think of is that the Cowboys are basing his timeline off the first time he broke his collarbone.
Click to expand...

It's a medical consensus that a collar bone has at least an 8 week injury. It isn't really a guess by organization.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
You're fielding the same number of players as the other team. You have seven inactive players every week. Is it really handicapping a team to have 2 of those inactive guys as Romo and Dez? I guess the Cowboys think there is no chance Romo will be back before 8 weeks. I guess I'm just wondering why, since other QBs with the same injury have taken less time. The only thing I can think of is that the Cowboys are basing his timeline off the first time he broke his collarbone.
Click to expand...

I think they weighed Romo versus Dez and decided Romo would be out longer.
 
Iamtdg said:
I think they weighed Romo versus Dez and decided Romo would be out longer.
Click to expand...

There is no thinking about it. That is pretty much how it rolled out. To me, it is the smartest decision.
 
L.T. Fan said:
It's a medical consensus that a collar bone has at least an 8 week injury. It isn't really a guess by organization.
Click to expand...

So Aikman and Rodgers doing it quicker then that is what? A modern miracle?

Obviously the Cowboys know more about Romo's medical situation then I do. Which begs the question then, if 8 games is really the absolute minimum for Romo, then should we be really be looking at 10 weeks as a realistic recovery timeline? I mean if the Cowboys thought Romo could be back in 7 weeks, would they have IR'd him?

By the way the average length of recovery time for Romo's injury is 7.3 weeks according to what I read.
 
Last edited:
L.T. Fan said:
It's a medical consensus that a collar bone has at least an 8 week injury. It isn't really a guess by organization.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, a 2010 study of NFL players examined 19 mid-third collarbone fractures that were treated both nonoperatively and surgically. The average time of healing for non-surgical breaks was 7.3 weeks while those treated surgically needed an extra 1.5 weeks to heal.

Not at all apparently.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
Furthermore, a 2010 study of NFL players examined 19 mid-third collarbone fractures that were treated both nonoperatively and surgically. The average time of healing for non-surgical breaks was 7.3 weeks while those treated surgically needed an extra 1.5 weeks to heal.

Not at all apparently.
Click to expand...

You are seriously going to argue the difference between 7.3 weeks and 8 weeks? Especially when it concerns a football player that has to be in 100% physical shape to play? Just stop now.
 
Romo being older and having had the same injury previously might have had a bit to do with playing it safe on the timetable also
 
Iamtdg said:
You are seriously going to argue the difference between 7.3 weeks and 8 weeks? Especially when it concerns a football player that has to be in 100% physical shape to play? Just stop now.
Click to expand...

Don't be a bitch about it.

I'm not arguing the difference between 7.3 and 8. What I'm saying is if 7.3 is the average that means obviously some guys are less then 7 weeks. So no, 8 weeks isn't the absolute minimum. By the way, if Romo misses 8 games, technically that's 9 weeks of recovery time before live action but that's not the point. All I'm saying is personally, if I have a chance for an extra game or two out of Romo, I wouldn't have IR'd him. That's all I'm really saying. Which for other players is at least possible. Maybe Romo's injury is different. Or maybe last time Romo broke his collarbone it took longer then 8 weeks and they assume this will be the same.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
Don't be a bitch about it.

I'm not arguing the difference between 7.3 and 8. What I'm saying is if 7.3 is the average that means obviously some guys are less then 7 weeks. So no, 8 weeks isn't the absolute minimum. By the way, if Romo misses 8 games, technically that's 9 weeks of recovery time before live action but that's not the point. All I'm saying is personally, if I have a chance for an extra game or two out of Romo, I wouldn't have IR'd him. That's all I'm really saying. Which for other players is at least possible. Maybe Romo's injury is different. Or maybe last time Romo broke his collarbone it took longer then 8 weeks and they assume this will be the same.
Click to expand...

So, you would rather them have designated Romo instead of Dez?
 
Iamtdg said:
So, you would rather them have designated Romo instead of Dez?
Click to expand...

No I wouldn't have signed Kellen Moore and then I wouldn't have needed to IR either guy. Because an extra game or two with one of those guys means more to me then keeping a 10th D-lineman who isn't active on game days. Sure we have to cut someone when Hardy comes back but a D-lineman makes way more sense since we would be adding a D-lineman to the roster.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
No I wouldn't have signed Kellen Moore and then I wouldn't have needed to IR either guy. Because an extra game or two with one of those guys means more to me then keeping a 10th D-lineman who isn't active on game days. Sure we have to cut someone when Hardy comes back but a D-lineman makes way more sense since we would be adding a D-lineman to the roster.
Click to expand...

You are being silly right now. One (prayers to the heaven) game doesn't denote wasting a roster spot for 7 weeks. It just doesn't. No matter how hard you want it.
 
Iamtdg said:
You are being silly right now. One (prayers to the heaven) game doesn't denote wasting a roster spot for 7 weeks. It just doesn't. No matter how hard you want it.
Click to expand...

Teams keep a third QB on their roster all the time. What's really the difference? I'll take a week of Romo over Lucky Whitehead or Kellen Moore for example.

Obviously for most players with this injury 7 weeks isn't a "prayer to heaven" at all. Heck that's basically the average. I'm assuming the Cowboys believe Romo's injury will take longer then average because of his past history with the injury. That's the only reason I can think to have put him on IR.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
Teams keep a third QB on their roster all the time. What's really the difference? I'll take a week of Romo over Lucky Whitehead or Kellen Moore for example.

Obviously for most players with this injury 7 weeks isn't a "prayer to heaven" at all. Heck that's basically the average. I'm assuming the Cowboys believe Romo's injury will take longer then average because of his past history with the injury. That's the only reason I can think to have put him on IR.
Click to expand...

lol ok
 
Iamtdg said:
lol ok
Click to expand...

FYI if I'm forced to pick between putting Dez or Romo on IR I agree that Romo made more sense. I expect to see Dez back in 6 weeks at worst.

I just think both players are so important to this team that if I could have avoided putting either on IR I would have.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
FYI if I'm forced to pick between putting Dez or Romo on IR I agree that Romo made more sense. I expect to see Dez back in 6 weeks at worst.

I just think both players are so important to this team that if I could have avoided putting either on IR I would have.
Click to expand...

It's dumb to put Romo on IR if you are hoping on a prayer he might just get back a week early, and waste that roster spot in the meanwhile.
 
Iamtdg said:
It's dumb to put Romo on IR if you are hoping on a prayer he might just get back a week early, and waste that roster spot in the meanwhile.
Click to expand...

If you assume the average is 7.3 you're not even talking about a week early. Not sure why you keep referring to it like it would take a medical miracle. A hope and prayer would be more like 6 weeks. It's not dumb to pick Romo for a game over some scrub who won't be on the roster next year in Kellen Moore.

Elite QB for a week or Kellen Moore on my bench. To me that's an easy decision. Clearly you disagree.
 
Last edited:
I guess the game we are talking about is Tampa, so maybe it's silly to think we need Romo for that game. If we can't beat Tampa without Romo we probably are 2-7 when Romo comes back.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
So Aikman and Rodgers doing it quicker then that is what? A modern miracle?

Obviously the Cowboys know more about Romo's medical situation then I do. Which begs the question then, if 8 games is really the absolute minimum for Romo, then should we be really be looking at 10 weeks as a realistic recovery timeline? I mean if the Cowboys thought Romo could be back in 7 weeks, would they have IR'd him?

By the way the average length of recovery time for Romo's injury is 7.3 weeks according to what I read.
Click to expand...

There are exceptions as you have cited but the average is 8 weeks. My guess is they didn't think Romo would have an exceptional recovery time since it had been broken before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom