I don't want to dwell on Tony Romo's bobbled hold from last January ... in the playoffs ... on a potential game-winning field goal. As a Cowboys fan, however, I'm stuck with it.
And I certainly don't want to hear about how "had he made it into the end zone..." because if you look at all the if only's in the history of the Dallas Cowboys, they would have seven or eight Super Bowl titles, not five.
But when ESPN reported Tony Romo will not be the holder next season for the Cowboys, I was forced to revisit this painful memory of the past NFL postseason.
Romo did a great job this past season stepping into the starting quarterback role for America's Team. He stuggled at times, but for his first full season as a starter, the future looks bright in Big D. More importantly, he didn't bobble any other snaps all season.
So on a rainy night in Seattle (then again, every night in Seattle is a rainy night), he dropped one ball. And I don't think the Cowboys should hold that against him. I know the club is reportedly saying that the move is because he is now the starter (Romo began the season as a backup, thus the role as a holder). But I think everyone knows what this is really about.
One bad hold.
Regardless, the Cowboys should keep Romo as the holder because he is the quarterback. He's the one guy the organization trusts with every snap of the game. Well, okay, it used to be every snap, but next year it'll be just most of the snaps.
Not only does having your QB hold open up the possibility of well-executed fake field goals, but it puts the ball in what should be the most consistent hands on the team.
In regards to this new "Romo rule" where ball-boys cannot hold onto the balls used for field goals - allegedly a ball-boy gave the refs a slicker ball for that final field goal attempt - I don't think that's the reason they lost. I like the new rule, but I'm not pointing fingers at a ball boy.
The Cowboys should hold on to Romo as their holder ... as long as he can hold onto the ball.