Favre praises Romo, indicts the rest of the offense

[RoyTheHammer]

Originally Posted by Cowboys&LakersFan

Well he's right. Romo has carried the Cowboys for years.

Romo may have carried the team at times, but to suggest that every game we've won has been solely because of him is nothing short of asinine.

I think its more accurate to say Romo has played well for us for years. He hasn't really "carried" us anywhere though. In our more successful seasons under his tenure, we've had a good defense and good rushing attack to go along with his good play. When we've had a less than good D or an average or below running game, we haven't gone anywhere.

[AZ_Cowboys_Fan]

Originally Posted by RoyTheHammer

Oh please, we're talking about over the course of his entire career in Dallas. Tony has had some good defenses and some good running games over that time span. To say he hasn't and has always had a crappy running game and a crappy D is beyond silly.

When I make that statement I'm comparing Tony to Flacco, Big Ben and Eli and the defenses they've had the benefit of having. As far as the running game goes Julius Jones showed flashes but wasn't what I'd consider a good running game. In my opinion, the weight of the world has been on Tony's shoulder's ever since he replaced Bledsoe against the Giants on Monday night.

[erod]

Originally Posted by RoyTheHammer

Comprehension can't be taught i guess. Tell us more about how Tony Romo's every win that has been recorded in his time with the Cowboys, he's won all by himself?

Really, so you're the only one who hasn't noticed?

Our defense has given up franchise records in points and yardage the past few of years. We've given up multiple doube-digit 4th quarter leads regularly. We haven't had a 1,000 yard rusher in forever (which is only 63 yards a game), nor do we have any success running against quality defenses. Romo has been injured repeatedly because we can't protect him. He's running for his life with sub-standard offensive lines and no representative running game.

When Dallas wins, it's almost always because Romo put the team on his back and won it for them.

Did you see the interview? Until you do, you're just talking out your backside.

[RoyTheHammer]

Originally Posted by erod

When Dallas wins, it's almost always because Romo put the team on his back and won it for them.

Keep saying it.. every game this team has won, we've won because of Romo and Romo alone.

[burmafrd]

Originally Posted by RoyTheHammer

Keep saying it.. every game this team has won, we've won because of Romo and Romo alone.

OK Roy when was the last time the D stood up and really got it done against a GOOD TEAM?

When was the last time we could run the ball on third and short?

[RoyTheHammer]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

OK Roy when was the last time the D stood up and really got it done against a GOOD TEAM?

When was the last time we could run the ball on third and short?

Well just off of memory, didn't we play the best QB in the game last year and hold him to 13 points until we mysteriously decided to give the ball back to him with a minute left in the game instead of trying to play offense? Seems with a QB who can carry us we would have gotten the ball back and tried to score again rather than just run it up the middle 3 times and willingly let the other team have the ball with a chance to win the game.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

OK Roy when was the last time the D stood up and really got it done against a GOOD TEAM?

When was the last time we could run the ball on third and short?

10 minutes has gone by and no one can answer your question.

[Cowboys&LakersFan]

Originally Posted by RoyTheHammer

Romo may have carried the team at times, but to suggest that every game we've won has been solely because of him is nothing short of asinine.

I think its more accurate to say Romo has played well for us for years. He hasn't really "carried" us anywhere though. In our more successful seasons under his tenure, we've had a good defense and good rushing attack to go along with his good play. When we've had a less than good D or an average or below running game, we haven't gone anywhere.

That's what I meant. Didn't word it correctly I guess.

[RoyTheHammer]

Again, i think it'd be an accurate statement to say that Romo has played well for us for years.

To say he's carried us for years? To where? Again the years we've been the most successful, we've had a good D and a good rushing attack to compliment Tony. When we haven't had those things, the only place Romo has carried us to is another early offseason.

[RoyTheHammer]

Originally Posted by Cowboys&LakersFan

That's what I meant. Didn't word it correctly I guess.

You worded it correctly, i was referencing another poster who seems to think every win we've recorded since Romo has been our QB has been solely because of Tony.

[KLJ]

romo has not won every game single-handedly, but this team's record would be a lot worse if it weren't for him.

[RoyTheHammer]

Originally Posted by KLJ

romo has not won every game single-handedly, but this team's record would be a lot worse if it weren't for him.

I think that would have to depend on who would have been here if he wasn't. You can't just act like if Romo wasn't here, whoever was backing him up that particular season would have been our starting QB.

[KLJ]

Originally Posted by RoyTheHammer

I think that would have to depend on who would have been here if he wasn't.

of course. i was replacing him with an average qb.

[erod]

Originally Posted by RoyTheHammer

Keep saying it.. every game this team has won, we've won because of Romo and Romo alone.

Jimminy Christmas, dude. Do you not understand hyperbole for effect to make a point. Was I supposed to crush the down-by-down numbers for the past five years before making a simple post.

OK, I'll give you that the defense might have stood up against the Seahawks once four years ago, or a Barber might have had a good game to help beat the Bengals once upon a time.

By and large, the VAST majority of the time, Tony Romo has had to carry this team on his back to win again and again. How many times has he put up 30 points and lost? How many times has this team failed to convert 3rd-and-1 on the ground? How many times has he had to throw 40-plus times to have a chance?

That was the point.

No, actually, the point was that Brett Farve said it. And I posted it.

Now let's move on to the point of the thread.

[RoyTheHammer]

Originally Posted by KLJ

of course. i was replacing him with an average qb.

Well that is an assumption, i don't know that Jerry Jones would go any considerable length of time with just an average QB though. Either way, we can't make a definitive statement one way or the other about who the QB would have been if Romo wasn't here, because we don't know what Jerry and Co would have done or how high up on the priority list finding a good QB would have been. I'd have to imagine it would have been pretty high though.

So if we can't make a defnitive statement about who the QB would have been if not Romo, then we can't really say that we'd have lost alot more games if not for Romo.. that's all i was trying to say.

Certainly, Romo has been a very good QB for us in his time here.