Video: Vintage Romo

[Super_Kazuya]

It's only idiotic because it doesn't fit the narrative that Romo never had a chance because of the defense. He did have a chance because the defense normally played well enough for us to win and extend our season.

And now your logic is flawed again. There is nothing magical about the last game just because it comes at the end. It counts exactly the same as the others.

 

[G2]

And now your logic is flawed again. There is nothing magical about the last game just because it comes at the end. It counts exactly the same as the others.

Are you serious?

 

[Aviano90]

And now your logic is flawed again. There is nothing magical about the last game just because it comes at the end. It counts exactly the same as the others.

Of course there is a difference, because winning that game means your season doesn't end. That's like claiming missing a potential game winning field goal in the Super Bowl counts exactly the same as a missed field in the 3rd quarter of week 2. It's just a missed field goal, right?

A team can go 16-0 but when you get to "do or die" the record no longer matters. They have to beat the team in front of them. That's the goal you try to get to each season. An opportunity to control your own destiny with a victory. We've gotten to that point a lot, just didn't take advantage of the opportunities.

 

[Corso]

This is funny stuff...

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Of course there is a difference, because winning that game means your season doesn't end. That's like claiming missing a potential game winning field goal in the Super Bowl counts exactly the same as a missed field in the 3rd quarter of week 2. It's just a missed field goal, right?

Why don’t you try a better analogy? A regular season game is not equal to a playoff game.

 

[Aviano90]

And just to prove it's just not about Romo, Dak has had 2 opportunities to extend our season and is now 0-2. Couldn't pull out the victory. It's not all his fault but lost 2 winnable games in 2 seasons so far.

 

[Aviano90]

Why don’t you try a better analogy? A regular season game is not equal to a playoff game.

While not technically a playoff game, those week 17 games were essentially playoff games when the winner of the game wins the division and the loser of the game season ends. The end result counts the same at that point.

And, BTW, when that opponent holds the tie breaker over you, winning that final head to head game counts more than winning another game earlier in the schedule. We would have needed to win 2 more games earlier to compensate for just that one week 17 loss.

 

[DFWJC]

You can argue Romo wasted Jerry's career and money.

I promise you Jerry wouldn't say that.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

I promise you Jerry wouldn't say that.

Jerry wouldn't say a lot of things. Doesn't make it no true.

 

[Aviano90]

Here's a question for you. I'm interested in hearing the responses.

I spent years debating with Romo haters that the team COULD win with Tony Romo. Their claim was the team couldn't win. I'm wondering how many of you who believe Romo didn't have a chance, tried to convince others, like myself, that the team couldn't win these games in the week leading up to the games? My guess is you guys were also trying to convince Romo haters that the team was going to win before the game. I wasn't claiming the defense sucked and we were going to lose because of it. I was still confident our offense was good enough to take care of business. I may be wrong about my guess, but I'd be very surprised. I know only the Romo haters were giving the team no shot at winning.

 

[SultanOfSix]

No, Tony was good enough to win those games, he just didn't. Not that he couldn't, not that he could never, not that he didn't have the ability. The team was more than capable of winning the games they lost, they just happened to NOT win. Romo was too good of a player for us not to have been able to win. Even when we had "bad defenses" we were able to hang with the best teams in the league most times. We had a few games were we were totally outclassed, but normally we were right there, so the ability to win existed.

My point is that we can't use a blanket statement that Romo didn't have a chance because the defense wasn't good. It's sounds good, it sounds logical. If that is the case Eli shouldn't have been winning because those defenses weren't great. Except, when they got to the do or die games, their defense stepped up their game and played well, giving their offense opportunities to win games and they capitalized. The Giants defense sucking in the regular season didn't matter. But when our defense out performed their normal level of play when the season was on the line and the offense didn't play well, the defense still gets blamed.

Actually, I don't think the team was capable at all at winning anything that mattered. Maybe with a Parcells as coach. But not with Wade nor the red-headed stepchild as the head coaches. That's what most people seem to forget in the blame Tony sweepstakes. It's the same tired argument repeated ad nauseum: that Tony should've elevated his play or stepped up. It's just asinine. No one individual player is going to win a game for you but a stepped up unit will, e.g., an offense or a defense. In the case of Eli and the Giants, it was the defense that stepped up and was the primary cause of them winning the Super Bowl that year. Eli didn't have to play great. He just had to play good enough. Even the Tyrell (?) catch in the Super Bowl was pure luck on Eli's part (it was a bad pass) and great play on the receiver's part. The competition rises in the playoffs. The Cowboys were rarely ever a consistent team on both sides of the ball and their coaching was at most average and that has always been their downfall. Tony is last on the list of possible issues as to why the Cowboys never won anything of significance while he was starting QB.

 

[Aviano90]

Actually, I don't think the team was capable at all at winning anything that mattered. Maybe with a Parcells as coach. But not with Wade nor the red-headed stepchild. That's what you're missing. It's the same tired argument repeated ad nauseum: that Tony should've elevated his play or stepped up. It's just asinine. No one individual player is going to win a game for you but a stepped up unit will, e.g., an offense or a defense. In the case of Eli and the Giants, it was the defense that stepped up and was the primary cause of them winning the Super Bowl that year. Eli didn't have to play great. He just had to play good enough. Even the Tyrell catch in the Super Bowl was pure luck on Eli's part (it was a bad pass) and great play on the receiver's part. The competition rises in the playoffs. The Cowboys were rarely ever a consistent team on both sides of the ball and their coaching was at most average and that has always been their downfall. Tony is last on the list of possible issues as to why the Cowboys never won anything of significance while he was starting QB.

I'm not missing anything. Perhaps you are thinking I am blaming Romo, and I'm not.

 

[G2]

Actually, I don't think the team was capable at all at winning anything that mattered. Maybe with a Parcells as coach. But not with Wade nor the red-headed stepchild as the head coaches. That's what most people seem to forget in the blame Tony sweepstakes. It's the same tired argument repeated ad nauseum: that Tony should've elevated his play or stepped up. It's just asinine. No one individual player is going to win a game for you but a stepped up unit will, e.g., an offense or a defense. In the case of Eli and the Giants, it was the defense that stepped up and was the primary cause of them winning the Super Bowl that year. Eli didn't have to play great. He just had to play good enough. Even the Tyrell (?) catch in the Super Bowl was pure luck on Eli's part (it was a bad pass) and great play on the receiver's part. The competition rises in the playoffs. The Cowboys were rarely ever a consistent team on both sides of the ball and their coaching was at most average and that has always been their downfall. Tony is last on the list of possible issues as to why the Cowboys never won anything of significance while he was starting QB.

Romo was part of postseason or late season failure. It was never ALL Romo, but he played his part.

 

[Darthkuriboh]

You misunderstood me I was referring to Tony Romo as a whole. Ironically the OP used a game that referenced my point. I love Romo he didnt have the peices around him to get it done but he still managed to keep Dallas in the pot.

Well then my apologies. You have no idea how many Romo haters I've had to mentally and emotionally abuse over the years

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Here's a question for you. I'm interested in hearing the responses.

I spent years debating with Romo haters that the team COULD win with Tony Romo. Their claim was the team couldn't win. I'm wondering how many of you who believe Romo didn't have a chance, tried to convince others, like myself, that the team couldn't win these games in the week leading up to the games? My guess is you guys were also trying to convince Romo haters that the team was going to win before the game. I wasn't claiming the defense sucked and we were going to lose because of it. I was still confident our offense was good enough to take care of business. I may be wrong about my guess, but I'd be very surprised. I know only the Romo haters were giving the team no shot at winning.

I don’t really think that haters or otherwise around here were all that worried about any one player. The biggest problem was that usually the team was at a disadvantage. With the exception of 2007, the Cowboys won the games they had the advantage in or should win “on paper” (Detroit, Philly) and lost all of the others. This is why I never thought they were going to win most of the time.

 

[Aviano90]

I don’t really think that haters or otherwise around here were all that worried about any one player. The biggest problem was that usually the team was at a disadvantage. With the exception of 2007, the Cowboys won the games they had the advantage in or should win “on paper” (Detroit, Philly) and lost all of the others. This is why I never thought they were going to win most of the time.

So you thought Tony was great but the team still didn't have a chance and when we lost, you expected that result?

 

[Corso]

It’s hard to build an appreciation thread based on handing off the ball and playing terrible once your pre-free agency superteam is brought back down to earth.

Should actually be harder to build appreciation threads about a guy who did even less in his career and had his best season "handing the ball off".
No, no... go ahead and throw some stats at me. It's cool. Whatever.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

So you thought Tony was great but the team still didn't have a chance and when we lost, you expected that result?

I wouldn’t say I was thinking they didn’t have a chance, just that the odds were heavily against them. We’ve seen how hard the playoffs have been for teams that don’t get a bye and this team was usually not good enough to secure one. And then you have to face 3 time MVP Fave at the impossibly loud Metrodome or 2 time MVP Rodgers at Lambeau and most teams fail those tests.

 

[Corso]

I wouldn’t say I was thinking they didn’t have a chance, just that the odds were heavily against them. We’ve seen how hard the playoffs have been for teams that don’t get a bye and this team was usually not good enough to secure one. And then you have to face 3 time MVP Fave at the impossibly loud Metrodome or 2 time MVP Rodgers at Lambeau and most teams fail those tests.

Lol...

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Should actually be harder to build appreciation threads about a guy who did even less in his career and had his best season "handing the ball off".
No, no... go ahead and throw some stats at me. It's cool. Whatever.

I’m not sure what’s so controversial. Aikman was a ball control QB who handed off, and robotically delivered slants and outs behind a mountainous offensive line. He was also pedestrian in the second half of his career, especially in the playoffs, despite being in his prime. It’s hardly the type of career you can fill an appreciation thread up with highlights and memories. I’m sure Aikman is fine with it.