Dak Prescott stakes his claim to the cowboys backup QB job

[Skinny_Bastard 154]

I think he has confirmed he is the QB for the future in Dallas. He's looked good and performed beyond expectations so far. Romo only has a few productive years left, so it's good they have someone ready and waiting who can perform in game pressure situations.

 

If he's truly the "future" then there's no reason to dial back the past with Romo.

They got the best Offensive line in the game. They have a stud young rookie RB that looks and plays like a star.

[DaBeerz 88]

 

If he's truly the "future" then there's no reason to dial back the past with Romo.

They got the best Offensive line in the game. They have a stud young rookie RB that looks and plays like a star.

 

I think he's a ways from supplanting Romo as the starter. They're not going to bench a 13 million dollar a year QB. He could still learn from Romo. that said if Romo comes back and plays poorly, then he might earn the starter spot for good.

[sirensong 111]

 

If he's truly the "future" then there's no reason to dial back the past with Romo.

They got the best Offensive line in the game. They have a stud young rookie RB that looks and plays like a star.

 

that's a ridiculous argument. there's a 4-year-old out there who is the future of the cowboys, but who also lacks the seasoning required to be successful at the highest level right now at this moment. you're saying we should skip both romo and dak and play the 4-year-old.

 

the best case scenario is that come january, DAL will be facing teams like GB and SEA. now, DAL does not have the defense to stop those teams, so they will need to win shootouts in order to advance. do you have confidence that dak can hang 30+ on top defenses? because romo has done it repeatedly. we know that he can do it.

 

dak is going to be great for us for a long time. but right now romo has a bigger, better toolbox, and gives the team the best chance to win in the playoffs.

[nobody 2,044]

 

Aaron Rodgers has 3.60 Air Yards/ATT fwiw, and 45.2% of his passing yards are YAC.

 

A big aspect of YAC is also the fact that the quarterback is putting the ball in spots where receivers are able to work after the catch. It's why the quick slants have always worked in Green Bay. Rodgers puts the ball where the receiver can get to it and run with it.

 

Here's some visuals of Wentz "dinking and dunking"

 

http://www.phillyvoice.com/carson-wentz-should-be-real-quarterback-stop-dinking-dunking/

 

 

Where do you guys get these stats from? To get averages in the 3's, you'd have to almost never throw a pass greater than 20 yards. It would have to be maybe 1 out of 50 throws.

 

Say you throw 25 passes, and take one deep shot at 20 yards. to get a 3.5 air yards per pass you have to total 88 yards. Now for the other 24 passes you only have 68 yards to work with which means you'd have to throw 24 passes averaging 2.8 yards per pass in the air. Not even Alex Smith does that. You'd have to throw like 15 screens to make the math work out.

 

Something tells me that wherever you guys are getting this stat from, they are taking the total yards after catch and subtracting it from total yards. Then they're dividing that number by the total number of attempts. The problem is that's not "air yards per attempt" since every incomplete pass would count as a pass that traveled 0 yards, and won't tell the story of how far guys are throwing since guys throwing deep and having bad completion percentages on those throws would be penalized.

[DaBeerz 88]

 

 

Where do you guys get these stats from? To get averages in the 3's, you'd have to almost never throw a pass greater than 20 yards. It would have to be maybe 1 out of 50 throws.

 

Say you throw 25 passes, and take one deep shot at 20 yards. to get a 3.5 air yards per pass you have to total 88 yards. Now for the other 24 passes you only have 68 yards to work with which means you'd have to throw 24 passes averaging 2.8 yards per pass in the air. Not even Alex Smith does that. You'd have to throw like 15 screens to make the math work out.

 

Something tells me that wherever you guys are getting this stat from, they are taking the total yards after catch and subtracting it from total yards. Then they're dividing that number by the total number of attempts. The problem is that's not "air yards per attempt" since every incomplete pass would count as a pass that traveled 0 yards, and won't tell the story of how far guys are throwing since guys throwing deep and having bad completion percentages on those throws would be penalized.

 

No kidding. YAC yards is all I hear, who cares honestly. The QB still has to be able to deliver the ball to a player who is open and running in stride to take advantage of YAC yards anyway.

 

Also on Rodgers, I see those bombs to Nelson and I'm not really thinking about YAC yards.

 

Lol Separating Air yards and YAC yards is just silly.

[nobody 2,044]

 

No kidding. YAC yards is all I hear, who cares honestly. The QB still has to be able to deliver the ball to a player who is open and running in stride to take advantage of YAC yards anyway.

 

Also on Rodgers, I see those bombs to Nelson and I'm not really thinking about YAC yards.

 

Lol Separating Air yards and YAC yards is just silly.

 

I guess in the context of the discussion, someone is saying wentz is a check down artist because his air yards per attempt is low, and Dak is a chucker because his average air yards per attempt is high, but if that stat is what I think it is, it's not a good measure of a qb's propensity to throw short. Dak would be getting rewarded because his completion percentage is sky high so he's not averaging in all those zero's for incompletions on deep throws like Wentz would be.

 

The true stat to compare the two would be average depth of target (aDOT) for the respective quarterbacks.

[giraldi02 470]

The one I provided is for completions. aDOT is the standard because that includes incompletions. Unfortunately I don't have a PFF Gold subscription

[tubby_mcgee 686]

Like it or not Cowboys fans, there is about a 1% chance Romo is turnover free at this point in the season. Romo tries to play hero (which it seems he had to in recent years). Dak just throws to who is open, and seems to make much better decisions when under pressure.

[tubby_mcgee 686]

 

I think he's a ways from supplanting Romo as the starter. They're not going to bench a 13 million dollar a year QB. He could still learn from Romo. that said if Romo comes back and plays poorly, then he might earn the starter spot for good.

 

 

I don't think $13 million has anything to do with it. Why would it? If Romo is the better choice, then he should start. No other reason. If Romo isn't the best option, what does the fact you are paying him $13 million have to do with winning (which is the entire objective of teams in the NFL)?

[sirensong 111]

 

 

Where do you guys get these stats from? To get averages in the 3's, you'd have to almost never throw a pass greater than 20 yards. It would have to be maybe 1 out of 50 throws.

 

Say you throw 25 passes, and take one deep shot at 20 yards. to get a 3.5 air yards per pass you have to total 88 yards. Now for the other 24 passes you only have 68 yards to work with which means you'd have to throw 24 passes averaging 2.8 yards per pass in the air. Not even Alex Smith does that. You'd have to throw like 15 screens to make the math work out.

 

Something tells me that wherever you guys are getting this stat from, they are taking the total yards after catch and subtracting it from total yards. Then they're dividing that number by the total number of attempts. The problem is that's not "air yards per attempt" since every incomplete pass would count as a pass that traveled 0 yards, and won't tell the story of how far guys are throwing since guys throwing deep and having bad completion percentages on those throws would be penalized.

 

sportingcharts.com: a stats aggregation website.

 

you seem to be having trouble conceptualizing the statistic, which is odd. what you described is correct: a QB's total passing yardage, minus the yardage that the receiver gained after the catch, constitutes 'air yards'. dividing air yards by the number of attempts results in the 'air yards per attempt'. every incomplete pass is indeed a pass that travels 0 yards, because precisely 0 yards were gained on that play.

 

so for example, eli manning currently leads the league with 789 air yards on 152 attempts, for a 5.16 AY/att. to use your example of rodgers, his current AY/att is 3.6, while his YPA is 6.56.

 

i can't understand why this is strange to you.

[sirensong 111]

Like it or not Cowboys fans, there is about a 1% chance Romo is turnover free at this point in the season. Romo tries to play hero (which it seems he had to in recent years). Dak just throws to who is open, and seems to make much better decisions when under pressure.

 

 

lel

 

when you play creampuffs with the benefit of the top running attack in the league, all you have to do is hit the open guy. when the entire offense is riding on your shoulders against the best teams in the league, that just isn't enough--you have to take risks in order to make plays.

 

romo's TD/INT ratio is 5th among active QBs, and 7th all-time.

[nobody 2,044]

 

sportingcharts.com: a stats aggregation website.

 

you seem to be having trouble conceptualizing the statistic, which is odd. what you described is correct: a QB's total passing yardage, minus the yardage that the receiver gained after the catch, constitutes 'air yards'. dividing air yards by the number of attempts results in the 'air yards per attempt'. every incomplete pass is indeed a pass that travels 0 yards, because precisely 0 yards were gained on that play.

 

so for example, eli manning currently leads the league with 789 air yards on 152 attempts, for a 5.16 AY/att. to use your example of rodgers, his current AY/att is 3.6, while his YPA is 6.56.

 

i can't understand why this is strange to you.

 

It's strange because it's a dumb statistic that's completely useless, and poorly named because, no, an incomplete pass is absolutely not a pass that traveled 0 yards. it traveled as far as it did before it was incomplete. The reason you would talk about "Air Yards per Attempt" is to see if a qb is throwing deep or not. This stat absolutely does not do that because a guy can throw 10 passes nine of which are incomplete bombs and 1 is a bubble screen and he'd have 0 "air yards per attempt" when in reality he averaged 45 "air yards per attempt" so it's a complete misnomer and tells you absolutely nothing about the qb.

 

If your point is to look at if he throws deep or not, air yards per completion would be a 10x better stat.

If your point is to say his ypa numbers are inflated by his receivers run after catch ability, why not just jump straight to YAC?

 

Why would you use a stat that is completely skewed by completion percentage to say either one of those things though? Even if you were trying to ding his efficiency, it's a terrible stat since hitting people in stride will contribute to YAC. Warner built the greatest show on turf hitting Bruce and Holt perfectly on a sprint to keep them running downfield.

 

It's just a terrible, useless, poorly named stat.

[Cruzer 1,992]

Interesting stat Wentz v. Dak : Dallas ranks 1st in 3rd down conversions - Philly is 27th. Seems remarkably odd considering Philly's record.

[sirensong 111]

 

It's strange because it's a dumb statistic that's completely useless, and poorly named because, no, an incomplete pass is absolutely not a pass that traveled 0 yards. it traveled as far as it did before it was incomplete. The reason you would talk about "Air Yards per Attempt" is to see if a qb is throwing deep or not. This stat absolutely does not do that because a guy can throw 10 passes nine of which are incomplete bombs and 1 is a bubble screen and he'd have 0 "air yards per attempt" when in reality he averaged 45 "air yards per attempt" so it's a complete misnomer and tells you absolutely nothing about the qb.

 

If your point is to look at if he throws deep or not, air yards per completion would be a 10x better stat.

If your point is to say his ypa numbers are inflated by his receivers run after catch ability, why not just jump straight to YAC?

 

Why would you use a stat that is completely skewed by completion percentage to say either one of those things though? Even if you were trying to ding his efficiency, it's a terrible stat since hitting people in stride will contribute to YAC. Warner built the greatest show on turf hitting Bruce and Holt perfectly on a sprint to keep them running downfield.

 

It's just a terrible, useless, poorly named stat.

 

 

that you don't understand how it works as a tool of quantitative analysis does not make it dumb or useless. for example, let's look again at the scenario you sketched.

 

you posited a QB who threw 9 incompletions and 1 bubble screen, for an AY/att total of 0. in other words, the statistic indicates that the QB did very poorly. sure enough, a 10% completion rate is quite bad. this means that the particular QB metric (AY/att) is an accurate measure the QB's performance in this case. and amusingly, it gives exactly the same result as the alternative measure you proposed: AY/comp. for both measures, the answer is 0. but your inclusion of a zero result for all attempts hides the shortcoming of your logic.

 

let's keep the very bad completion percentage (10%), and say that instead of a 0 yard bubble screen, the QB's only completion is an 18 yard out route, with 5 of those as air yards and 3 YAC. what does that change?

 

well, the QB still performed horribly. he was terribly inaccurate, and his YPA (a foundational QB stat) is dismal:1.8. his AY/att of 1.5 also reflects this poor performance. on the other hand, your suggestion--air yards per completion--tells a very different story. the AY/comp is 15.0.

 

see how ridiculous that is? your stat says that a QB with a 10% completion rate for 15 yards is performing the same as a guy who is 10 for 10 and 150 yards. now, that word "performing" is important, because we're talking about actual gains of scrimmage yards on the football field. from the perspective of performance, a guy who repeatedly throws downfield and repeatedly misses is a bad QB, and the statistics used to describe his performance should reflect that badness. your stat does the opposite of that.

 

these are very, very basic concepts in quantitative analysis.

 

 

 

maybe the funniest part of your whole post is that you suggest we look at YAC...without understanding that YAC is a receiver statistic. in order to utilize YAC to assess a QB, we would have to...drum roll please...aggregate YAC for all receivers, and subtract it from a QB's total yardage.

 

in other words, you just re-invented the air yards statistic.

 

congratulations.

 

[nobody 2,044]

 

 

You don't divide it by attempts though. You divide it by completions.

 

Anyway I get you love the stat. Even though there are already 10 stats that do a better job of quantifying play. Great.

[sirensong 111]

You don't divide it by attempts though. You divide it by completions.

 

Anyway I get you love the stat. Even though there are already 10 stats that do a better job of quantifying play. Great.

 

 

dividing by completions means that a QB stat line of 10att, 1comp, 15yds scores exactly the same as a stat line of 10att, 10comp, 150yds. you're saying that those 2 QBs performed exactly the same. they didn't. one was flawless, and the other was terrible. but your stat says they were identical.

 

this is why statistical analysts cringe when sports fans talk about 'stats'. statistics aren't there to be loved--they're just tools. but the tools have to work properly, or they're worthless.

[nobody 2,044]

You want to know how far a guy is throwing the ball you divide by completions.

 

If you want to know how well he's playing all we have is qb rating, qbr, completion percentage, ypa, ypc, td/interception ratio, adjusted completion percentage, etc.. so I guess if you want to take a qb and arbitrarily remove yards after the catch you can, but a qb who hits his receiver in stride is better than a qb who throws behind his receiver so he gets tackled.

 

Why not just use yards per attempt? It's a better stat for what you want.

[sirensong 111]

You want to know how far a guy is throwing the ball you divide by completions.

 

If you want to know how well he's playing all we have is qb rating, qbr, completion percentage, ypa, ypc, td/interception ratio, adjusted completion percentage, etc.. so I guess if you want to take a qb and arbitrarily remove yards after the catch you can, but a qb who hits his receiver in stride is better than a qb who throws behind his receiver so he gets tackled.

 

Why not just use yards per attempt? It's a better stat for what you want.

 

 

welp, we've confirmed you don't work with numbers for a living.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

 

 

I don't think $13 million has anything to do with it. Why would it? If Romo is the better choice, then he should start. No other reason. If Romo isn't the best option, what does the fact you are paying him $13 million have to do with winning (which is the entire objective of teams in the NFL)?

Don't act like a players salary has nothing to do with whether they start.

[cavern 70]

this is actually sort of like what was going on in "Any Given Sunday"

 

although, i'm not expecting Dak to come out with a music video

[Cruzer 1,992]

You can argue all day long whether it's stupid to bring back Romo or not - agreed.. But Romo will start when he comes back - period..... Now how long he stays the starter if he's clearly not the same or losing remains to be seen - but he will get the job.

[nobody 2,044]

 

 

welp, we've confirmed you don't work with numbers for a living.

I guess you're right. If I only had a background in math. I'll bow down to your obviously superior credentials.

[cavern 70]

or gets hurt.

 

not to bring the "Any Given Sunday" storyline in too much, but i DO wonder if, if the team is really hot, do they delay romo's return a few weeks? surely there are going to be some weeks where it's a judgement call as to whether he's truly recovered and ready or not. so... what do they do for those weeks? if dak is hot - maybe romo gets another week or 2 of rest that he otherwise might not have gotten.

 

but i tend to agree with you. i do NOT expect to see any situation where Romo is healthy and dressed out on the sidelines but not in the game because he lost the job. if he's active and not in the game it will be "he can play, but they want to give him another week, so he is the emergency qb tonight"

 

 

You can argue all day long whether it's stupid to bring back Romo or not - agreed.. But Romo will start when he comes back - period..... Now how long he stays the starter if he's clearly not the same or losing remains to be seen - but he will get the job.

[sirensong 111]

I guess you're right. If I only had a background in math. I'll bow down to your obviously superior credentials.

 

 

it isn't about credentials. it's about understanding how various quantitative measures can answer different questions.

[sirensong 111]

surely there are going to be some weeks where it's a judgement call as to whether he's truly recovered and ready or not.

 

 

 

 

it's a bone break--a mechanical injury. therefore the judgment call will be on the part of the doctor clearing him to play or not, and will be based almost exclusively on the likelihood of re-injury.

 

when doc clears him to play, he plays. it's really that simple.

[cavern 70]

like you said: it's a judgment call. it's also an uncommon injury among athletes (it's more common among the elderly. no, i'm serious, it's not a dig at romo!) so, there's not going to be all black and white like it might be if he had fractured his arm. it's pretty common knowledge that more time = more chance to heal. i just submit that the doctor might be more prone to "let him rest another week or 2 so we can be sure" if they are kicking butt.

 

i actually checked the timetable. the original was 6 - 10 weeks. interestingly, it's now been 6 weeks. you would think we'll start to hear something soon

 

 

it's a bone break--a mechanical injury. therefore the judgment call will be on the part of the doctor clearing him to play or not, and will be based almost exclusively on the likelihood of re-injury.

 

when doc clears him to play, he plays. it's really that simple.

[Cruzer 1,992]

Let's re-visit say, about Week 4. If I'm wrong I'll own it. Just thought you'd appreciate the honesty Cruzer, and the attempt to keep things in perspective.

 

For example, I've liked how Connor Cook has looked. Nice crisp delivery. Cannon for an arm. Not afraid to go down the field. But I'm not getting glassy-eyed, not in pre-season. You should know better,n but you're caught up in the possibility of striking gold. Lol, you've got gold fever.

Week 4 has come and gone, comments?

[DaBeerz 88]

 

I guess in the context of the discussion, someone is saying wentz is a check down artist because his air yards per attempt is low, and Dak is a chucker because his average air yards per attempt is high, but if that stat is what I think it is, it's not a good measure of a qb's propensity to throw short. Dak would be getting rewarded because his completion percentage is sky high so he's not averaging in all those zero's for incompletions on deep throws like Wentz would be.

 

The true stat to compare the two would be average depth of target (aDOT) for the respective quarterbacks.

 

I also suggest Wentz has passed the eye test for me, I have seen him on a few overthows, but he has a strong arm and can complete deep passes when required.

[Cruzer 1,992]

 

I also suggest Wentz has passed the eye test for me, I have seen him on a few overthows, but he has a strong arm and can complete deep passes when required.

Wentz has the ability to tuck it and run too. I just assumed someone his size was pretty cement footed - I was wrong.

[cavern 70]

For what it's worth, jones is now talking about Dak's performance allowing the cowboys to be more patient with Romo

 

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/jerry-jones-calls-dak-prescott-tony-romo-situation-a-miracle-problem-to-have-101116

 

 

 

 

it's a bone break--a mechanical injury. therefore the judgment call will be on the part of the doctor clearing him to play or not, and will be based almost exclusively on the likelihood of re-injury.

 

when doc clears him to play, he plays. it's really that simple.

 

like you said: it's a judgment call. it's also an uncommon injury among athletes (it's more common among the elderly. no, i'm serious, it's not a dig at romo!) so, there's not going to be all black and white like it might be if he had fractured his arm. it's pretty common knowledge that more time = more chance to heal. i just submit that the doctor might be more prone to "let him rest another week or 2 so we can be sure" if they are kicking butt.

 

i actually checked the timetable. the original was 6 - 10 weeks. interestingly, it's now been 6 weeks. you would think we'll start to hear something soon

[Cruzer 1,992]

For what it's worth, jones is now talking about Dak's performance allowing the cowboys to be more patient with Romo

 

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/jerry-jones-calls-dak-prescott-tony-romo-situation-a-miracle-problem-to-have-101116

Speaks to the dysfunctional make up of this team. Where else in sports does the GM or owner determine who starts and who doesn't? Can you imagine Bob Kraft telling Belichick who one of his starters is going to be - then telling the world on radio?

 

If Dak marches into Lambeau and wins this week - it will be damn near impossible to bench him for Romo. This town just might revolt - least for a week, until Romo goes out and wins. But if he falters, they will be screaming for Jerry's head.

[cavern 70]

agree on all counts

Speaks to the dysfunctional make up of this team. Where else in sports does the GM determine who starts and who doesn't? Can you imagine Bob Kraft telling Belichick who one of his starters is going to be - then telling the world on radio?

 

If Dak marches into Lambeau and wins this week - it will be damn near impossible to bench him for Romo. This town just might revolt - least for a week, until Romo goes out and wins. But if he falters, they will be screaming for Jerry's head.

[sirensong 111]

Speaks to the dysfunctional make up of this team. Where else in sports does the GM or owner determine who starts and who doesn't? Can you imagine Bob Kraft telling Belichick who one of his starters is going to be - then telling the world on radio?

 

If Dak marches into Lambeau and wins this week - it will be damn near impossible to bench him for Romo. This town just might revolt - least for a week, until Romo goes out and wins. But if he falters, they will be screaming for Jerry's head.

 

yeah, GB is the big test. i'm a romo fan to the bone, but if dak comes out and out-duels rodgers (not just wins the game, but out-plays him), then i won't complain about riding the hot hand.

[R8RMick 242]

Week 4 has come and gone, comments?

Ok I know you've been looking for me. Haven't spent much time here other than Raider threads, and off the grid last weekend. BTW you can always PM me to give that heads up when you want to spike the football.

 

Ok. Obviously the pre-season take was wrong. Honestly my assumption wasn't unreasonable was it? But having said that, he's done everything they've asked and more. Truthfully, that personal foul in the Frisco game probably saved him, because he was in a spiraling funk till then.

 

They've put him in good situations, play called to his strengths, or away from his weaknesses as you like. I still think it will get difficult for him as tape accumulates, and they face some better defenses. Agree?

 

My bus driver comment was probably ill advised, he's obviously far more than that, especially in comparison to the clowns they had last year. The most glaring stat is he isn't turning the ball over. He's keeping his team in the game, not putting the defense on a short field. Again, haven't been a big fan of Cowboy coaches but they're unsung here as well.

 

What really grabs me is they're doing all this without Bryant and more importantly Tyron Smith. I'd thought Bryant is the heart and soul of this team, that they absolutely could not do without him? I'd be interested to see how much Dez cares about winning if he comes back and sees his stats go down in this new offense. How does he react the first time Prescott fails to get him the ball? I'm not a big fan of Bryant so maybe that's unfair.

 

Again, if a Cowboys fan I'm thinking big picture. This kid is the future franchise QB. At SOME point this season he's going to, or he MAY hit a rookie wall. Do you want that to be in a playoff game? Or do you play him till he hits a bad streak then pull him for Romes? Either way damages his confidence, which is critical for young QBs. What I'd do, circle a calendar date which is safely reasonable for Romes to come back and give him that job. Maybe first week in December? If Romo gets hurt again, you're covered. If Romo struggles, same. But also a good chance Romo comes back and gets this team deep in the playoffs. I think your team is playing with house money. With Smith, Bryant, and Romo all out, your future franchise QB has you at 4-1. What a difference a year makes.

[Skinny_Bastard 154]

 

that's a ridiculous argument. there's a 4-year-old out there who is the future of the cowboys, but who also lacks the seasoning required to be successful at the highest level right now at this moment. you're saying we should skip both romo and dak and play the 4-year-old.

 

the best case scenario is that come january, DAL will be facing teams like GB and SEA. now, DAL does not have the defense to stop those teams, so they will need to win shootouts in order to advance. do you have confidence that dak can hang 30+ on top defenses? because romo has done it repeatedly. we know that he can do it.

 

dak is going to be great for us for a long time. but right now romo has a bigger, better toolbox, and gives the team the best chance to win in the playoffs.

Oh c'mon... Romo is a tool. When the pressure is on, he curls up and dial back his baby days. Don't even try to defend that.

[Skinny_Bastard 154]

 

yeah, GB is the big test. i'm a romo fan to the bone, but if dak comes out and out-duels rodgers (not just wins the game, but out-plays him), then i won't complain about riding the hot hand.

Did belicheck complain about playing Brady when the better "toolbox" Bledsoe was healthy. If you have a young star and he can win in this league. You play him over the aging player that haven't played a full season in years and who can't win the "big" game.

[Cruzer 1,992]

 

yeah, GB is the big test. i'm a romo fan to the bone, but if dak comes out and out-duels rodgers (not just wins the game, but out-plays him), then i won't complain about riding the hot hand.

I'm with you... I heard Broaddus this a.m. - he is heavy on Romo getting his job back.. Made some great points about Romo being able to make throws Dak can't make and elevating the offense to an even higher level.. Which are all true.

 

My only concern remains to be - are we getting "that" Romo back, are we getting 2012-2014 Tony Romo back? If we are, look out - cuz this thing is going to be scary.. But the reality is we're getting back a 36 year old Romo who's coming off 2 collarbone breaks/surgeries and a broken back. I would be shocked if "that" Romo still exists....... Only 1 way to find out though - and we all know what that is.. I sure wanted to see Dak v. Wentz under the lights in 2 weeks - I'm sure the networks did too. I'm afraid we won't get to see it now.

[R8RMick 242]

I'm with you... I heard Broaddus this a.m. - he is heavy on Romo getting his job back.. Made some great points about Romo being able to make throws Dak can't make and elevating the offense to an even higher level.. Which are all true.

 

My only concern remains to be - are we getting "that" Romo back, are we getting 2012-2014 Tony Romo back? If we are, look out - cuz this thing is going to be scary.. But the reality is we're getting back a 36 year old Romo who's coming off 2 collarbone breaks/surgeries and a broken back. I would be shocked if "that" Romo still exists....... Only 1 way to find out though - and we all know what that is.. I sure wanted to see Dak v. Wentz under the lights in 2 weeks - I'm sure the networks did too. I'm afraid we won't get to see it now.

Listening to Fish right now... they need to find out what Romo they have in light of the cap/roster decisions they need to make this winter as well.

[Cruzer 1,992]

Listening to Fish right now... they need to find out what Romo they have in light of the cap/roster decisions they need to make this winter as well.

I don't know why Fish is considered the pariah of the local media that he is. I think outside of Hitzges -he's as good as it gets.

[sirensong 111]

I don't know why Fish is considered the pariah of the local media that he is. I think outside of Hitzges -he's as good as it gets.

 

 

who considers him that? IMO he's the best cowboys beat guy period. the only cowboys reporters i bother following are spags, broaddus, and fish.