I'm finished with Jerry and Garrett

[Richard_white]

Sorry, but that's simply not true, at least not right after the game when what had just happened was fresh on his mind.  If that was what he wanted he would have said so.  Instead, he basically said "no comment" to repeated questions about it, saying something about not wanting to get into "existential" discussions and that doing so wouldn't be beneficial to the team.

We were driving across Colorado listening to the Cowboys radio network and listened to the entire press conference.  It was obvious he wasn't happy though he tried to sidestep the questions.

The interview is true.  I believe it was even on the Dallas Cowboys website.

[DLUXHOG]

So you're a Romo fan but not a cowboys fan.

Interesting.

no, he lost a bet.... my guess, is a big one.......

[EastexHawg]

The interview is true.  I believe it was even on the Dallas Cowboys website.

Did you listen to his post-game press conference?

[EastexHawg]

I can't find the full press conference anywhere, but this is from Mac Engel's post-game column in the Star Telegram:

As evidenced by Romo's 6-minute postgame press conference, he clearly does not agree with any of this.


He was brief, and wanted to avoid "existential questions" ... whatever that means.

"I just wanted to prove to myself and prove to the coaches and to the teammates that I can be the same guy," Romo said.

Tony is not dumb; he knows the storylines and the questions. He's not answering them not to be rude, but rather to avoid any headline that is about him, even if that is impossible.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article124101384.html#storylink=cpy

[EastexHawg]

This is from Cowboys beat writer Jeff Sullivan:

I have been pretty mute on this topic, at least in print, and there's really no reason to break that trend. The week before last, I was watching practice and, my word, did Romo look unreal. Just making throws that only a handful of quarterbacks have ever made in my lifetime, dropping balls in spots where almost no one else would even throw. It is what it is, right? Sadly, and ridiculously unfairly, if the Cowboys don't win the Super Bowl there are always going to be questions and debate about who should have been taking the snaps.

This is all confusing on so many levels. Dak Prescott deserves being in the discussion for NFL MVP, yet he's not the best quarterback on his team. I'm sorry, he's just not.

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/2017/01/02/sullivan-unless-they-win-it-all-there-will-be-debate-about-qb

[EastexHawg]

Jerry would rather have another Super Bowl win than cure cancer, but he would maybe rather be right than either.  If Dak plays poorly and the Cowboys get bounced from the playoffs, there is no way he is going to allow anyone to say, "Why didn't they give Romo a chance?  He looked awesome against the Eagles!"

That's why we all had to endure Mark Sanchez.  No chances can be taken on another "getting rid of Jimmy cost the Cowboys more Super Bowls" discussion. 

Speaking of Jimmy, he said on the Fox post game report that the Dallas offense would be more explosive with Romo.

Before any of you bust a blood vessel, remember that the point of this is not that Dak should not start.  It's simply about the way Romo's playing time against Philadelphia was handled.

[Richard_white]

Did you listen to his post-game press conference?

No I didn't. If you say so than I believe you......  But I did listen to his interview the next day and he didnt sound too upset to me. 

Like I said he even said one/two series.  Maybe Romo wanted that second series.  I have no idea.  But I do know that Romo said he only wanted one/two series.

[TomasPistola]

Jerry would rather have another Super Bowl win than cure cancer, but he would maybe rather be right than either.  If Dak plays poorly and the Cowboys get bounced from the playoffs, there is no way he is going to allow anyone to say, "Why didn't they give Romo a chance?  He looked awesome against the Eagles!"

That's why we all had to endure Mark Sanchez.  No chances can be taken on another "getting rid of Jimmy cost the Cowboys more Super Bowls" discussion. 

Speaking of Jimmy, he said on the Fox post game report that the Dallas offense would be more explosive with Romo.

Before any of you bust a blood vessel, remember that the point of this is not that Dak should not start.  It's simply about the way Romo's playing time against Philadelphia was handled.

I don't believe the identity of this Dallas team has been to be explosive anyways. Their idea with Dak is to be ball control, run the ball behind that great offensive line and let the QB make a few plays here and there in the short/intermediate passing game. Eat up clock and keep the defense from being exposed (sounds familiar). I love what Romo has meant to the Cowboys, but a couple of plays against the Eagles - and a drive greatly assisted by a huge PI penalty - doesn't convince me Romo should be starting. I hate it for him though. He's a good guy.

[bennyl08]

Romo has played less than four games in two years.  He has never played a single snap in an NFL game with Ezekiel Elliott, for instance.  Until Saturday afternoon he hadn't taken a regular season snap in over 13 months.  It has been that long since the played with Dez Bryant and Jason Witten.  You act as if he has been playing regularly all along.

No I haven't. Read what I say, not what you think I say. However, I'd love for you to go into detail with my posts and explain why for a second you think that is what I'm acting like.

I'm treating Romo badly?

Yes, you are. Your argument is that Dallas treated him poorly by not playing him. Multiple people have corrected you, describing that they only played him in limited fashion because they greatly value him, as a player to help their odds in the playoffs and to try and set him up as best they can in the off-season with a different team. Your response to those arguments is that he's the backup and thus shouldn't be treated as a valuable player. You think he isn't valued, are told that not playing him extensively shows he is valued, and you reply with they shouldn't value him that much.

Ridiculous, but typical of you.

Crazy ole me, actually reading what people type.

Romo is a football player.  Football players play football.  He clearly wants to play.  Let me get this straight.  Romo is so valuable to the Cowboys that...that...they never play him.

Clearly you don't have things straight that you are using words like "never" despite that they very much did play him.

Not one snap for the first six weeks that he was medically cleared to play,

First, let's assume you are correct, how long have you followed the sport of football? It is extremely, extremely, extremely common for coaches to not play players the second they are medically cleared, particularly when they have an extensive injury history. This being a hog board, does Bielema hate RW3? Was he devaluing our starting tailback? RW3 was ready for football action by the first snap of spring ball, but wasn't given any live hits until fall camp, and even then they were cautious with him.

Further, how do you define taking snaps? You do realize that he has been taking snaps since October 26th in practices, throwing to his teammates. Sure, he didn't see any game time snaps, but who did? Sanchez threw all of 1 pass in any game outside of week 17, and that was when Romo had barely been cleared. Todd Gurley was medically cleared and practicing with the rams during the preseason, but IIRC, they kept him out of games for the first 4 weeks just to be sure that he was 100% and not just barely able to play. And they didn't have anybody on offense who was as good as him, much less somebody who had been doing quite well in his stead.

then a total of six snaps in a game in which the starters were being rested.

So, Dak isn't a starter? Dak played more snaps than Romo, and looked rustier than Romo despite having played all season. How could that be? Could it be, Romo has more experience with this offense than Dak, had plenty of time to work off any rust in practice, and showed to the coaches that being under lights would be no hinderance while Dak is still a rookie, albeit one who has earned the right to be the starter, and still has a lot to learn?

How can a football player be any more valuable than that? 

Was that rhetorical? Let's see, team valuing player's long term health by not rushing him back into live action as soon as he is legally cleared for the meat grinder? Check mark 1 for being a highly valuable player. Playing the player long enough for him to find his game legs under the lights, but once he's shown mastery, pulling him in a game less meaningful than the preseason to prevent injury? Check. Giving him a massive paycheck? Check. Maximizing his value by showing him at his best and keeping him healthy for when he will have to leave the team (due to having a starter's salary)? Check. HC and owner sticking by Romo through thick and thin? Check.

Not a rhetorical question. What more could they have possibly done for Romo to show his value other than what they have done?

Dak, who had taken ever snap this year before Sunday, needed to play because he needs continuity.  Romo, who hadn't played in a regular season game since November of 2015, needed to not play because he was clearly sharp and ready to go.  Do you realize how ridiculous your argument is?

My argument? If my posts are longer than your attention span can handle, it is okay to admit that. No need to try and pretend you actually read my posts and make up arguments and hope you got them correct. No, my argument was that they needed to play him long enough for him to trust his body under the lights against a team that will try to hurt him long enough for him to show that the rust has worn off and then pull him because he is incredibly valuable to this team. He showed on that first drive that he trusts his newly healed body and that being in front of another team's defense wasn't going to make him shrink. He showed that there wasn't any more rust to knock off, so they pulled him. He was actually sharper than Dak that game, despite the disparity in live game snaps b/w the two, likely because of Romo being a very seasoned veteran who had been practicing for nearly 2 months.

[EastexHawg]

Was that rhetorical? Let's see, team valuing player's long term health by not rushing him back into live action as soon as he is legally cleared for the meat grinder?

"As soon as he was cleared to play"?  Maybe you should stick to commenting on the Seahawks and global warming, because once again you are making statements that are clearly false.  Romo was cleared to play by doctors early in November, with eight games remaining in the regular season...not right before the final game against the Eagles.

The Cowboys veteran quarterback was fully cleared to play earlier this week

Since Romo has been medically cleared, that means the decision to make him inactive this week came from the coaching staff.

Those quotes come from a CBS Sports online story dated November 11.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/cowboys-reportedly-make-decision-on-tony-romos-week-10-status/

The game against the Eagles game was played on January 1.  Romo was cleared by the medical staff on November 7.  November 7 to January 1 spans 55 days, just short of eight weeks. 

Are you actually trying to claim that Jerry Jones and Jason Garrett thought doctors may have underestimated when Romo would be physically able to play by eight weeks...half the season? 

LOL.  This wasn't a medical/player health decision.

[riccoar]

You simply couldn't pull Prescott at that point.  NOBODY, even Garrett or Jones, expected this when Romo went down.  However, no way you play Romo too much at Philly when it gains you nothing.  Prescott will be the starter and if he went down, Romo comes in.

[EastexHawg]

You simply couldn't pull Prescott at that point.  NOBODY, even Garrett or Jones, expected this when Romo went down.  However, no way you play Romo too much at Philly when it gains you nothing.  Prescott will be the starter and if he went down, Romo comes in.

No, this is about "we're not going to have a QB controversy".  No one is saying Prescott should have been pulled.  But not giving the backup a single snap in seven games, then letting him play one series in the finale?  Come on, guys, use your damn heads.  No team refuses to play its backup because they are afraid he might get hurt.  I've asked for examples of this and no one can come up with one.  That's understandable because IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED.  It's a silly explanation, but for some reason people are willing to lap it up.

You don't announce that Romo is the permanent backup, at least for the last half of the season and the playoffs, then refuse to put him on the field because you are afraid he is going to be injured.  That's what teams do with the starter in meaningless games and in blowouts, not the backup.  We all know that.  Why are people pretending this is normal?

[bennyl08]

"As soon as he was cleared to play"?  Maybe you should stick to commenting on the Seahawks and global warming, because once again you are making statements that are clearly false.  Romo was cleared to play by doctors early in November, with eight games remaining in the regular season...not right before the final game against the Eagles.

Those quotes come from a CBS Sports online story dated November 11.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/cowboys-reportedly-make-decision-on-tony-romos-week-10-status/

The game against the Eagles game was played on January 1.  Romo was cleared by the medical staff on November 7.  November 7 to January 1 spans 55 days, just short of eight weeks. 

Are you actually trying to claim that Jerry Jones and Jason Garrett thought doctors may have underestimated when Romo would be physically able to play by eight weeks...half the season? 

LOL.  This wasn't a medical/player health decision.

Trying not to make this personal, but you really do have incredibly bad reading comprehension. Maybe you should stick to... not sure what you are good at, but it isn't cowboys. What I said wasn't false. And apparently, I know more about the cowboys than you do. Romo wasn't cleared on Nov 7th, he was medically cleared late october.

http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/dallas-cowboys/cowboys/2016/11/10/tony-romo-medically-cleared-weeks-cowboys-coaches-purposefully-keeping

Rather than you going back to read my post, I'll bring it back up here for you, so you don't have to search yourself.

...
Further, how do you define taking snaps? You do realize that he has been taking snaps since October 26th in practices, throwing to his teammates. Sure, he didn't see any game time snaps, but who did? Sanchez threw all of 1 pass in any game outside of week 17, and that was when Romo had barely been cleared. Todd Gurley was medically cleared and practicing with the rams during the preseason, but IIRC, they kept him out of games for the first 4 weeks just to be sure that he was 100% and not just barely able to play. And they didn't have anybody on offense who was as good as him, much less somebody who had been doing quite well in his stead.
...
Was that rhetorical? Let's see, team valuing player's long term health by not rushing him back into live action as soon as he is legally cleared for the meat grinder?
...

I mean, your thought process here in misinterpreting my post is baffling to me. If I'm saying the team did not rush back to live action as soon as he was medically cleared, why on earth would you think I was under the impression he was medically cleared just before week 17 when he in fact did have live game action? I would be immediately contradicting myself if I did that.

Given that you had nothing else to say on the matter, I take that as you conceding my other points, and the only point you could conjure up was a false point that requires contradictory logic for you to even think I made.

[riccoar]

The Philly thing was about the playoffs.  Home field secured.  Your starter Prescott plays a series and then benched.  His backup, Romo plays a series and then benched.  Why would you play Romo the rest of the game and then risk Sanchez being #2 in your playoff run should Romo tweek something?

Plus, I just don't see Romo being with Dallas come start of training camp next year.

[EastexHawg]

The Philly thing was about the playoffs.  Home field secured.  Your starter Prescott plays a series and then benched.  His backup, Romo plays a series and then benched.  Why would you play Romo the rest of the game and then risk Sanchez being #2 in your playoff run should Romo tweek something?

Plus, I just don't see Romo being with Dallas come start of training camp next year.

Actually Prescott played into the beginning of the second quarter.  Why would you risk him being injured and Sanchez the backup...to Romo? 

I know you are a smarter guy than this, but you pass it off as if it's normal, everyday.  Teams don't play their backups because if the backup gets hurt they would have to rely on the 3rd string guy if the starter also got hurt.  Really?  That's the way it works and the way teams around the country throughout history have approached it?

Have you ever heard the complaint that Bielema never gives the backup QB any reps in games?  Yeah, me too.  So out of all the times you have heard that mentioned, how many times did you hear someone say, "Well for Hog's sakes, if he is going to do that don't dare play Ty Storey!  If he got hurt, we would have to rely on Rafe Peavey if Austin also got hurt!  That's a risk we can't afford to take!"

Of course not, because that is ridiculous.

[bennyl08]

Actually Prescott played into the beginning of the second quarter.  Why would you risk him being injured and Sanchez the backup...to Romo? 

I know you are a smarter guy than this, but you pass it off as if it's normal, everyday.  Teams don't play their backups because if the backup gets hurt they would have to rely on the 3rd string guy if the starter also got hurt.  Really?  That's the way it works and teams around the country throughout history have approached it?

Have you ever heard the complaint that Bielema never gives the backup QB any reps in games?  Yeah, me too.  So out of all the times you have heard that mentioned, how many times did you hear someone say, "Well for Hog's sakes, if he is going to do that don't dare play Ty Storey!  If he got hurt, we would have to rely on Rafe Peavey if Austin also got hurt!  That's a risk we can't afford to take!"

Of course not, because that is ridiculous.

There you go again with the whole Romo isn't any more valuable than Sanchez argument. Also, where is your complaint thread for McFadden? He's the backup rb to Elliot, yet he was out touched and only played into the first drive of the 2nd half. Clearly they weren't protecting a valuable veteran player with an extensive injury history in a game that meant absolutely nothing to the team. That can't possibly be it. Must be a conspiracy against him.

Also, do you not follow the hogs? There have zero games where Ty Storey was the backup qb and Peavey the 3rd string. Last season, Austin was the backup, and this season, Peavey was on the SMU roster. I get you are trying to make a point, but that is something  most hog fans should know. Also, you are basing what teams should do based on what hogville posters say? Bielema plays his backup qb as readily as any other coach in the country. There just aren't a lot of opportunities to play the backup in the first place.

Further, your argument only slightly works if the 2nd string qb isn't all that valuable. Then, yeah, what difference does it make if you are playing with a 2nd string or 3rd string. Neither will have played much at all in most cases. If you lose Aaron Rodgers, it isn't like Brett Hundley is going to be their savior. If Hundley gets hurt, they can grab a veteran FA and be in no worse shape than they already are in. Now, if Aaron Rodgers goes down, but Phillip Rivers is his backup, then yeah, there's a huge dropoff b/w Rivers who is a top 10 qb in the entire NFL and anybody else they could get. If Tom Brady goes down and Big Ben is his backup, yeah, you don't play Big Ben in the week 4 preseason game because he gains nothing, he doesn't need the experience, and you only risk injuring him. Romo is worst case a top 15 qb in the NFL. He is better than over half the other qb's without question. You treat him the same respect as you would an actual starter. He is as valuable as a starting qb.

You want some examples of teams protecting the 2nd string qb?
2015, preseason, week 4
CIN v Indy: Indy gives veteran backup Hasselbeck 4 dropbacks, third stringer Bennett had 25. Cincy, otoh, has a green backup in McCarron who had 28 attempts, with the 3rd stringer getting 7.
PHI v NYJ: Jets didn't even play their 2nd string qb. Barkley got 9 reps as their backup at the time to Tebow's 17 before being cut.
TB v MIA: Young Glennon was given 20 passes, 3rd stringer 6. Miami didn't even play their 2nd stringer Moore who is an experienced veteran.
NO v GB: Veteran McCown had 5 passes to the 3rd/4th stringers combined 32. GB: still having competition for the backup qb, Tolzein  had 11 as a somewhat veteran player, Hundly had 23.
Bal v atl: Veteran Schaub had 7 attempts, 3rd stringer Renner had 24. Falcons, Grossman had 9 to Renfree's 15.
Buf v Det: Didn't even play the 2nd string, Orlovsky had 4 attempts to the 3rd stringer's 22.
NYG v NE: Giants gave inexperienced 2nd stringer all the reps, NE didn't even play their young 2nd stringer in Garroppolo.
Car v Pit: Veteran Anderson, 7 attempts, younger Webb, 22. Vet Vick, 5, younger Landry? 11.
Jax v was: Veteran Henne, 0 snaps, 3rd stringer all 25 attempts. Youngish McCoy got all the snaps.
Min v Ten: 2nd string no even present, 3rd got all the reps. Ten: Starter mariota played a bit since he was so young and needed reps, backups Mettenberger ( and veteran Whitehurst (3) combined to match the 4th stringer who had 11.
KC v STL: Daniel and Murray had 20 and 15 respectively as they were still figuring out who to keep. Foles and Keenum combined for 5 reps while Mannion got 24.
Hou v Dal: Mallett (2) vs Savage (29). Dallas backup didn't even step on the field.
Cle v Chi: Neither backup saw the field.
Ari v Den: Backup didn't see field, Osweiller as a young 2nd string had 12 attempts to Siemian's 24.
SD v SF: Here you go, one of the worst run teams in the NFL, SD, had veteran Clemmons with 17 attempts to young Sorenson's 22. SF didn't play either of their top 2.
Oak v Sea: young McGloin got 24 reps to Ponder's 11. Seattle actually played starter Wilson for 1 attempt, didn't play the backup at all, and then gave it over to 3/4th stringers.

[EastexHawg]

One word...preseason. 

The Cowboys weren't trying to decide who was going to make the final roster for the start of the season New Year's Day against the Eagles.  But thanks for playing.

[bennyl08]

One word...preseason. 

The Cowboys weren't trying to decide who was going to make the final roster for the start of the season New Year's Day against the Eagles.  But thanks for playing.

One word... clinched.

Cowboys weren't risking any valuable players to injury beyond what was needed to keep/knock some rust off in a game that they gain literally nothing by winning. Preseason games actually mean more than this one did. But thanks for playing.

[EastexHawg]

One word... clinched.

Cowboys weren't risking any valuable players to injury beyond what was needed to keep/knock some rust off in a game that they gain literally nothing by winning. Preseason games actually mean more than this one did. But thanks for playing.

So in your example, did any of those 2nd string QBs play more than six snaps in the preceding preseason games?  Or were their teams so fearful that they would be injured that they kept them on the bench rather than risk the unthinkable?

I can't think of any other way to say this...your "a ha!" example is idiotic. 

[bennyl08]

So in your example, did any of those 2nd string QBs play more than six snaps in the preceding preseason games?  Or were their teams so fearful that they would be injured that they kept them on the bench rather than risk the unthinkable?

I can't think of any other way to say this...your "a ha!" example is idiotic.

Coming from you, I genuinely take that as a compliment. You are the only one here who is actually offended that the Cowboys value Romo enough to protect him. You somehow think it is silly for the cowboys to value their backup qb enough to protect him and conclude that by actually doing so, it proves they don't value him at all. You have yet to answer that question. You have also yet to admit you didn't know when he was medically cleared or admit that you made some bad errors in reading my posts. You have yet to answer why playing him for longer would have shown more loyalty to him.

Don't care to look through the list of week 3 preseason games to give you passing attempt numbers. You asked for examples of meaningless games where the team played the third stringer more than the backup to protect the backup from injury. Week 4 of the preseason is the closest possible analogy to a game in week 17 where the playoffs are clinched, the first round bye is clinched, and home field advantage is clinched. The only value in playing anybody is to keep rust from coming off or knocking rust off that had developed before and building depth with your backups. If Dak had scored on that first drive, he would have been pulled after 1 drive. His team gained 9 yards, so he played a total of 2 drives that game. The 2nd drive ended in a fg and his day was done. 2 drives. He only completed 4/8 passes too despite having played all season long. Romo comes in. Orchestrates an 81 yard td drive. Was 3/4 passing with the only incompletion on a deep ball where he evaded pressure in the pocket to be able to make the throw that was well defended. You maintain that Romo couldn't possibly be prepared to play having missed time, yet played better than the starter who had been consistently playing. You neglect that he had in fact been taking snaps with the team for nearly 2 months. How do you think Matt Moore was able to come into the Dolphins and play so well despite not playing at all before? Answer? Moore was in the NFL when Ryan was still in HS. You think that if you took a year away from your job, you couldn't come back and do it just as well, if not better than some new guy who had been doing it for 6 months?

[Hogarusa]

Okay, Mr. Simple, I'll give you a shot.  Name a team that has ever refused to play its backup QB because they are afraid he will be injured.  That's why you have a backup.

How many $100 million backups can you name?

[DLUXHOG]

How many $100 million backups can you name?

Not for long.  He'll get traded for a bunch of defensive stars.....

[Jackrabbit Hog]

The Cowboys are young at most key positions.  Assuming Jerrah can keep all the key components under contract, they'll be back. 

[EastexHawg]

Not for long.  He'll get traded for a bunch of defensive stars.....

How much can they get for him?  It's like trading your vehicle when you're upside down, isn't it?   Whoever gets Tony is also getting his contract.

[DLUXHOG]

How much can they get for him?  It's like trading your vehicle when you're upside down, isn't it?   Whoever gets Tony is also getting his contract.

Phhhhhhhh.....  you do understand that if Romo wants to play anywhere again that he will renegotiate his contract significantly down so that Jerry can trade him..... otherwise he simply gets cut.....

[EastexHawg]

otherwise he simply gets cut.....

I think that is exactly what Romo would like.  Dallas, on the other hand, will try to trade him.

[DLUXHOG]

I think that is exactly what Romo would like.  Dallas, on the other hand, will try to trade him.

I don't think so....   I think he'd like to renegotiate to a reasonably "high" level where he could be traded and start for someone else.    If he simply gets cut, he has to start at the bottom......(Jerry's on Hogville, just so you know....)

[EastexHawg]

I don't think so....   I think he'd like to renegotiate to a reasonably "high" level where he could be traded and start for someone else.    If he simply gets cut, he has to start at the bottom......(Jerry's on Hogville, just so you know....)

How much do the Cowboys have to pay him if they cut him?  I don't know the terms of his contract, but I don't think they get to just walk away from it.  What they really wish would happen is that he would retire so they don't have to pay him anything or worry about him going to another team and making them better.

I think he just wants to go somewhere so he can play football.  Denver is probably his first choice, but Houston would work, too. 

[bennyl08]

How much do the Cowboys have to pay him if they cut him?  I don't know the terms of his contract, but I don't think they get to just walk away from it.  What they really wish would happen is that he would retire so they don't have to pay him anything or worry about him going to another team and making them better.

I think he just wants to go somewhere so he can play football.  Denver is probably his first choice, but Houston would work, too.

Don't think they want him to retire. The sport is a harsh business, but you don't see too much animosity between people. If they have to cut you, frequently, they'll put in a call for you for another team to help you sign with them and still be in the NFL. Sure, they'd rather him not be in their same division, but they're going to want what is best for Romo and themselves.