- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 25,295
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.
When Romo is completely healthy, who do you play?
- Thread starter p1_
- Start date
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.
Simpleton
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 23,723
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.
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
- 27,424
Not to mention former coaches who have been asked. They to a man vote Dak.
NoDak
Hotlinking' sonofabitch
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 27,620
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 25,295
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
- 23,723
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.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 64,511
Simpleton
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 23,723
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
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.
Texas Ace
I'll Never Dream Again
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 27,722
That's the thing....we don't HAVE to do anything.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 144,791
Yes Jerry WILL just because of the romantic notion. It would be like "winning one for John".
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 64,511
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
Genghis Khan
The worst version of myself
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 50,983
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
- 50,983
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
- 23,723
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
- 23,744
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.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 64,511
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.