Well I was stunned that Tuna gave up on Drew this early. But now that he has he's gonna have to stick with Romo IMO.
Yeah, you gotta stick with Romo, unless he was just trying to send Bledsoe a message. He needs to pick a QB and stick with it.
Unfortunately I had a school board meeting last night from 7:30-11:30, so I have not had a chance to watch the game. Knowing Dallas had lost, I was not interested in starting in on the tape that late. So, I will hold my answer. However, I don't think last night's game will tell me anything that I didn't already believe. I disagree that you don't always have to go with one and stick with it. Usually this doesn't work, but both Dallas and Parcells have a successful history in using more than one QB when needed. Bledsoe (and therefore Dallas) will continue to struggle against teams that can provide an overbearing pass rush. He will continue to look really good against teams that cannot. Romo will continue to make mistakes against any level of team. He has extra mobility that is helpful in avoiding these teams that can rush the passer, but much of his mobility will just benefit him trying to chase down the DB that intercepted his pass. Dallas is just one game out, and yet about to the point that they are needing to try something. In fact, they did last night. Bledsoe needs to play and win against the teams they should beat. Against the other teams when you know Bledsoe is going to struggle, I don?t necessarily have a huge problem throwing in Romo like they did last night.
I also do not think that they have to stick with one quarterback, especially in this situation. I was amazed about the Dallas record they posted last night from the years Aikman was there and the years following (i.e. Dallas has not done so well since he has retired). I don't know much about Romo but he doesn't seem like the future of the franchise. Look at a team like Philly, and albeit we have not yet won our Super Bowl, but as a fan we have experienced a lot more "success" with McNabb in these last several years.
I say give Romo the start next week, Bledsoe is finished as far as I'm concerned. He looks like a statue back in the pocket. Romo threw some costly INTs but he did more than Bledsoe did in the way of offense, still I was surprised that Parcells had Bledsoe ride the pine so quickly in that game. On a side note, I noticed T.O. was continuing to bitch and moan on the sidelines as well, that guy just never shuts up but at least he backed up his mouth with some solid play on the field.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>(i.e. Dallas has not done so well since he has retired).</div> Yeah, but if Bledsoe had Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin and Aikman's O-line, Dallas' record would be a different story.
Cracks me up. Individually, no one will give a lot of accolades to the stars of the 92-95 Cowboys. Irvin was only good because they had a good running game. Same for Aikman. Emmitt was only good because of the line. I agree, they had a pretty good line. But if the line did that well, I would expect several of the lineman that helped them win those three superbowls would be worthy of at least HOF discussion at some point. Don't hold your breath. This may sound a little weird, but a good QB that knows how to take advantage of its line's strengths can also make the line look a whole lot better than they really are too. It works both ways.
its all about the oline if you have a good oline its the base for a good team. and good teams ALWAYS have a good oline
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J-E-T-S 1083)</div><div class='quotemain'>its all about the oline if you have a good oline its the base for a good team. and good teams ALWAYS have a good oline</div> Thank you!!! Wow...I don't know why this statement seems to escape people. Emmitt's critics have been trying to remove all of his yards from him because of the great OL he had. Isn't it funny that the Cowboys had no running game and often lost whenever Emmitt wasn't in the game? If the OL was so great then why couldn't Sherman Williams or one of the other backups the Cowboys had over the years ever do what he did? Yes, the OL might have been the greatest in the history of the NFL, but Emmitt had many great attributes that made him a great back. It's not like Walter Payton had a terrible line during the years he played. In fact, there are only two RBs in the history of the NFL that I can think of that would have been successful without a great OL; Barry Sanders and Jim Brown. Those two also happen to be the best RBs in the history of the NFL. I had a coach tell me once that football is a simple game. You get a bunch of big guys on both sides of the ball and they start to push each other, whichever team's big guys can push the other big guys the furthest wins. I think football is more complex than that, but he's not entirely wrong either. A great OL will make a team go. Games are most often won and lost in the trenches. The Dallas/Giants game was a great example of that.
Well the seasons over for the Cowboys already so it doen't matter I think you put Romo in there and get rid of Bledsoe at the end of the year.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MysteryMan)</div><div class='quotemain'>Well the seasons over for the Cowboys already so it doen't matter I think you put Romo in there and get rid of Bledsoe at the end of the year.</div> Romo will start Sunday...Parcells has already announced it. The fact is that the Cowboys aren't going to win a Super Bowl with Bledsoe. Romo gives them a better chance with the OL that they have.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cubuffsman78)</div><div class='quotemain'>Romo will start Sunday...Parcells has already announced it. The fact is that the Cowboys aren't going to win a Super Bowl with Bledsoe. Romo gives them a better chance with the OL that they have.</div> This comes on the heals of the owner endorsing Bledsoe. Things could get real ugly in Big D. And the crazy thing about it is that TO is actually only a side plot to this whole story.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bakes781)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cubuffsman78)</div><div class='quotemain'>Romo will start Sunday...Parcells has already announced it. The fact is that the Cowboys aren't going to win a Super Bowl with Bledsoe. Romo gives them a better chance with the OL that they have.</div> This comes on the heals of the owner endorsing Bledsoe. Things could get real ugly in Big D. And the crazy thing about it is that TO is actually only a side plot to this whole story. </div> I dunno about Jones being nuts about Bledsoe. He was more of a Drew Henson guy. He wanted Henson to get the shot that Romo is getting. Parcells liked Romo a lot more than Henson. This situation could actually be the cause of the Parcells/Jones divorce not TO. You're right about that. I think that Parcells has less problems with TO than everyone is making him out to have. I think he dislikes Vanderjagt more than TO to be honest.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bakes781)</div><div class='quotemain'>I guess you didn't hear the news: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/spo...harlotte_sports</div> That was a wishy washy statement if anything, but like I said...Jones had preferred Henson over Romo. Since Henson is gone he probably does prefer Bledsoe since Henson is more like him. I don't want to say he's just like him, but I see some of that same gunslinger mentality in Romo that is seen in Favre. With the playmakers that the Cowboys have at receiver...having a gunslinger out there isn't all bad.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I dunno about Jones being nuts about Bledsoe. He was more of a Drew Henson guy. He wanted Henson to get the shot that Romo is getting. Parcells liked Romo a lot more than Henson. This situation could actually be the cause of the Parcells/Jones divorce not TO. You're right about that. I think that Parcells has less problems with TO than everyone is making him out to have. I think he dislikes Vanderjagt more than TO to be honest.</div> So when Jones looks for his new coach he'll have to find someone willing to work with TO!
