I still think about that game even though it does not matter. But I still wonder what would have happened. Somethimes I wonder if the cowboys would have met the bears and pull a upset over the bears. I still think about. What do you think if tony romo did not fumble the ball? would the cowboys would have won the game or would seattle comeback to win it?
2007-03-08 08:04:47 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Football (American)
now please remember there was 1:10 left on the clock, thats more than enough time.
2007-03-08 08:41:09 · update #1
The Seahawks would have gotten the ball and gotten close enough for Josh Brown to nail the winning kick. Dallas' defense couldn't hold a junior high team near the end of the season and the seachickens were starting to click offensively as that game went on.
Either way regardless of what Romo did with that snap, Seattle was gonna win. The only variable that would have had Dallas winning was if Gramatica would HAVE JUST TOUCHED JORDAN BABINEAUX WITH HIS PINKY FINGER then Romo would have scored the touchdown on the botched snap, and the Seahawks would have needed a TD with 1:00 left instead of a field goal. Then Dallas would have schooled Chicago the next week andwho knows what could have happened.
2007-03-08 08:52:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Too many ifs to factor in. Bottom line was what was on the scoreboard in the end. I was rooting for dallas but again.. the scoreboard is the only way to judge the winner. You can go back and say what if all you want, it can be done in every game. What if dallas won this game or that game then they wouldn't have even had to play seattle. I read one say it was the prep of the game.. sorry that's foolish answer.. I'm sure they were well prepared and saw things that everyone of us fans didn't. None of us are even close to being able to second guess the coach's decisions. We are fans and see it from fans eyes. Theres an expert on every corner of every bar, but there are no qualified NFL coaches bending their elbows with you. When I hear people criticizing coach's decisions I can only laugh and say theres another qualified wanna be.
There is one question that I haven't heard anyone comment on so I assume no. I looked and looked and have always wondered.. did romo have enough yards if he hadn't have fumbled to give dallas a 1st down??.. I believe he was right on the line and it would have 1st and goal. But here again.. I am not sure if he had enough.
2007-03-08 18:31:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes they would have won. Contrary to popular belief, Romo didnt lose the game. True, it was a factor in the loss, but the Cowboys lost that game during the preparation for the game. They were facing a Seahawks team with an injury depleted secondary. It was so bad that any of us could have got signed for the game. The Cowboys should have exploited that weakness and threw the ball until they showed they could stop it. Thats what lost it for them more than the "slippery ball" in Romo's hands.
2007-03-08 16:16:00 · answer #3 · answered by Quiet Storm 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I would say no.
The simple fact is that Seattle should not have been that far in the first place. Their entire Post Season streak was due not to their skill but insead to their opponets making mistakes. Had they made it to the superbowl, it would have been a waste of a game, and a waste of a season. Romo fumbling the hold on that kick was just another example of Seattle getting lucky when they didn't deserve to even be playing that game.
2007-03-08 16:12:27 · answer #4 · answered by Michael L 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Cowboys would have definately won. Not enough time to get down field for any type of play.
If Glenn didn't fumble and give up the safety then the field goal wouldn't of even been an issue for the Cowboys.
Not to mention Witten fumbling and giving the ball back for an easy 3.
With all the mistakes the Cowboys made, I personally feel it was just fate that the Seahawks beat them.
2007-03-08 16:10:29 · answer #5 · answered by Tyler E 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
till the 2007 season starts im going to keep staying up at the wee hours of the night contemplating the same thing . would the cowboys have beaten the seahawks ? would the cowboys have beaten the bears ? would the cowboys have gone on to win the super bowl ? i think yes they would have won and it would be the cowboys taking home the lombardi trophy again not the colts
2007-03-09 10:10:05 · answer #6 · answered by Carlos g 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They would have had a very good chance because remember right after that the Cowboys D came out and forced a three and out. If Dallas would have had the lead when that happened, Dallas very well could have been a kneel down away from winning it.
2007-03-08 16:38:06 · answer #7 · answered by MJMGrand 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think the Cowboys win that game, but they can't beat the Bears either in 2006 or 2007.
And Seattle was lucky to be there. Seattle got snakebit in the Super Bowl they outplayed Pittsburgh in, and that was a payback.
2007-03-08 16:45:02 · answer #8 · answered by Your Uncle Dodge! 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No Seattle would have still won. And furthermore Dallas still had a chance to win the game at the end. They choked like the big chokers they are and watch who goes to the playoffs this year. It won't be Dallas but the perrenial playoff contenders the GREAT SEATTLE SEAHAWKS!
2007-03-08 18:04:36 · answer #9 · answered by antonio_tony_cabeson 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
no one can possibly predict that, it would depend on a million factors, like field position, time management, the possibly of the seahawks turning it over, etc.
but to answer, i think if the seahawks got good enough field position, didn't turn it over, and got two or three first downs, they would have won considering josh brown had been the best clutch FG kicker in the league up to that point
2007-03-08 16:15:02 · answer #10 · answered by sabes99 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋