Twitter: Romo comments on losing his starting job to Dak

TheMarathonContinues · Mar 27, 2020

Super_Kazuya said:
yawn... more totals. Learn to read troll... you aren't good at it. It doesn't support the garbage coming out of your mouth.

That 2006 season would be a microcosm of Romo’s career: a long time spent on the bench, statistical output that rivals the best of his generation, and eventually an underwhelming end. In the playoffs, Romo bobbled the snap on a game-winning field-goal attempt during a wild card game against the Seattle Seahawks, a moment that began a run of playoff futility that none of his peers experienced.

Why don't you defend your wife and children this hard?

TwoDeep3 · Mar 27, 2020

I have wrestled with this since it happened. I have been an open critic of Romo when he was the starter. Let me qualify that. I cheered his successes, but did not ignore his failures. And said so.

During 2016 I, like so many, were surprised at the success of the team. Thirteen and three was a tremendous ride. I leaned toward staying with the streak and not putting Romo back in when he was healthy. Hindsight is always correct, so my changing my opinion on that decision by the team and what they should have done doesn't make me right back then. Some will say it doesn't make me right now.

Garrett should have had the guts to put Romo in week 14 against the Giants and let him play the string out. I think a case could be made the team would have won out in the regular season. Romo brought something Dak did not and that was the long game.

I very much would like to have seen that offense with the potential of the long ball and how that would have affected the Green Bay defense in the play-off game. Especially how it would have freed up Zeke to run wild.

This is not a knock on Dak as much as it is an admission Romo would have been so hyper focused to take the team all the way.

People will argue. That is the nature of this board. But I believe, as special as the team was in '16, Garrett made a huge mistake, either allowing Jerry to make that decision, or not having the guts to make one himself.

With the impetus of sitting throughout most of the season, Romo and his pride would have pushed him to show the team and the world he was still a top notch QB.

The argument is Romo would have gotten hurt.

Then put Dak back in. Duh!

Surely I could be wrong.

But I damn sure would have liked to see an amped up Romo with Zeke's running game and that offensive line, motivated and focused in a rematch against Green Bay playing in Dallas.

I had my doubts about Romo in big games. Too many times he threw critical interceptions. This board was vehement it was always the defense. It was not.

I cannot help but think Dallas would have put Green Bay away in the play-off game and walk through to the championship game. Just my opinion, from a guy who was critical of Romo when he failed.

Hindsight has a component of regret. In this instance it also contains the sadness of that last second loss to Rodgers.

Philmonroe · Mar 27, 2020

thunderpimp91 said:
I will never understand the need for these threads that become Dak vs Romo. The Cowboys have been given two QBs back to back that are capable of winning every week they step on the field, but instead of appreciating that it has to become a d*ck showing contest that puts these two against each other. I'd rather relive the Chat Hutchinson vs Quincy Carter debates than this garbage.

Dak isn't capable of winning every week unless he facing teams picking at the too of the draft.

Super_Kazuya · Mar 27, 2020

rocyaice said:
That 2006 season would be a microcosm of Romo’s career: a long time spent on the bench, statistical output that rivals the best of his generation, and eventually an underwhelming end. In the playoffs, Romo bobbled the snap on a game-winning field-goal attempt during a wild card game against the Seattle Seahawks, a moment that began a run of playoff futility that none of his peers experienced.

Why don't you defend your wife and children this hard?

Why do you have a dead, wack rapper as an avatar? Stay on topic... and learn to read. None of this supports the drivel coming out of your mouth.

TwoDeep3 · Mar 27, 2020

rocyaice said:
That 2006 season would be a microcosm of Romo’s career: a long time spent on the bench, statistical output that rivals the best of his generation, and eventually an underwhelming end. In the playoffs, Romo bobbled the snap on a game-winning field-goal attempt during a wild card game against the Seattle Seahawks, a moment that began a run of playoff futility that none of his peers experienced.

Why don't you defend your wife and children this hard?

This is not my argument, and I am sticking my nose in uninvited. But your comment here implies you think the Seattle fumble is related to the other losses.

Correct me if I am wrong. If not, then you need to rethink this. They are not related just because Romo was the QB in all of them.

Romo did throw critical picks in high profile games. But that doesn't mean he always would. Because changing circumstances means outcomes would change. Maybe they would still lose, but results are not guaranteed.

TheMarathonContinues · Mar 27, 2020

TwoDeep3 said:
I have wrestled with this since it happened. I have been an open critic of Romo when he was the starter. Let me qualify that. I cheered his successes, but did not ignore his failures. And said so.

During 2016 I, like so many, were surprised at the success of the team. Thirteen and three was a tremendous ride. I leaned toward staying with the streak and not putting Romo back in when he was healthy. Hindsight is always correct, so my changing my opinion on that decision by the team and what they should have done doesn't make me right back then. Some will say it doesn't make me right now.

Garrett should have had the guts to put Romo in week 14 against the Giants and let him play the string out. I think a case could be made the team would have won out in the regular season. Romo brought something Dak did not and that was the long game.

I very much would like to have seen that offense with the potential of the long ball and how that would have affected the Green Bay defense in the play-off game. Especially how it would have freed up Zeke to run wild.

This is not a knock on Dak as much as it is an admission Romo would have been so hyper focused to take the team all the way.

People will argue. That is the nature of this board. But I believe, as special as the team was in '16, Garrett made a huge mistake, either allowing Jerry to make that decision, or not having the guts to make one himself.

With the impetus of sitting throughout most of the season, Romo and his pride would have pushed him to show the team and the world he was still a top notch QB.

The argument is Romo would have gotten hurt.

Then put Dak back in. Duh!

Surely I could be wrong.

But I damn sure would have liked to see an amped up Romo with Zeke's running game and that offensive line, motivated and focused in a rematch against Green Bay playing in Dallas.

I had my doubts about Romo in big games. Too many times he threw critical interceptions. This board was vehement it was always the defense. It was not.

I cannot help but think Dallas would have put Green Bay away in the play-off game and walk through to the championship game. Just my opinion, from a guy who was critical of Romo when he failed.

Hindsight has a component of regret. In this instance it also contains the sadness of that last second loss to Rodgers.

Few things.....

its been reported it was a Garrett decision to stick with Dak. Not Jerry. I think its safe to say that Jerry loved Romo enough to put him back in if he wanted to make that call.

You had the option of putting Dak back in if Romo got hurt........but a good coach wouldn't do that. You don't mess up that run. Mind you Dak at the time had durability, youth and mobility on his side.

I too was a Romo fan of the time. Probably not as critical of him as you were. But I saw enough from Romo and this team in general to know they would've found a way to lose. They always did. 2016 was no different. Whether it was the defense giving up a big play at the end of the game, Garrett leaving too much time on the clock and having clock management issues......they would've found a way to lose. Look at 2014...everything lined up perfect for them. Even in 2007. Something always came up to rear its ugly head.

Philmonroe · Mar 27, 2020

rocyaice said:
Tough guy behind the computer.........you don't even defend your own kids and wife like you do Romo.

You should know

starfan1 · Mar 27, 2020

Super_Kazuya said:
The article literally says that statistically he was a top 5 QB who does not have the career totals of his peers because of all the games missed. The article also never says he wasn't a top 5 QB. It said he would be remembered as a good QB and not a great one because his career totals fall short of the Hall of Fame. Learn to read... it doesn't support the garbage coming out of your mouth.

Super_Kazuya said:
Romo is fourth in adjusted net yards per attempt and tied for second in touchdown rate. His career NFL passer efficiency rating is 97.1, just a tenth of a point shy of Brady’s.

Anything else, troll?

since i posted the article ill chime in. The article is not a glowing review if Romo nor is is it an indictment. Romo was hard worker which is why he does have some top 5 categories but looking at the graph comparing him to his peers hes more in the 6-10 range. that doesn't mean he is garbage. availability is a criteria that will be used in judging TR and is also why in part his teams came up short. He played in a passing era and all of these QB will post high numbers and he was efficient at it.

in the end his best season can be summed up in 2014 which is when he wast the focal point Murray was and the line and run game were. They were a complete team on the offensive side anyway. Tonys biggest problem was also the current QB's he payed fro a clown show regime and even bigger clown on sidelines for the bulk of it
NAME STARTS YARDS SUPER BOWL WINS MVP AWARDS 1ST TEAM ALL-PRO PRO BOWLS
Peyton Manning 265 72K 2 5 7 14
Drew Brees 232 66 1 0 1 10
Tom Brady 235 62 5 2 2 12
Eli Manning 199 48 2 0 0 4
Ben Roethlisberger 183 47 2 0 0 5
Philip Rivers 176 46 0 0 0 6
Carson Palmer 174 44 0 0 0 3
Aaron Rodgers 135 37 1 2 2 6
Tony Romo 127 34 0 0 0 4
Romo’s career totals aren’t as impressive as his peers’

and Ill say when the decision to go with dak was made i was quite happy. romo pissed me off many a time but Tony was a bettr passer. he couldnt sya healthy in the end which is why it was the correct decision but there is always monday morning Qb options.

TheMarathonContinues · Mar 27, 2020

TwoDeep3 said:
This is not my argument, and I am sticking my nose in uninvited. But your comment here implies you think the Seattle fumble is related to the other losses.

Correct me if I am wrong. If not, then you need to rethink this. They are not related just because Romo was the QB in all of them.

Romo did throw critical picks in high profile games. But that doesn't mean he always would. Because changing circumstances means outcomes would change. Maybe they would still lose, but results are not guaranteed.

Don't pay my argument with that idiot any mind. He is arguing me down about what that article represented and all I'm doing is posting inserts from that article. Not arguing a stance either way. He's not worth the time.

TheMarathonContinues · Mar 27, 2020

Philmonroe said:
You should know

And here comes his friendly cousin from the basement. All we need is MattJames to poke his egghead in here and the 3 stooges will be back at it again like cooked crack.

Super_Kazuya · Mar 27, 2020

starfan1 said:
since i posted the article ill chime in. The article is not a glowing review if Romo nor is is it an indictment. Romo was hard worker which is why he does have some top 5 categories but looking at the graph comparing him to his peers hes more in the 6-10 range. that doesn't mean he is garbage. availability is a criteria that will be used in judging TR and is also why in part his teams came up short. He played in a passing era and all of these QB will post high numbers and he was efficient at it.

in the end his best season can be summed up in 2014 which is when he wast the focal point Murray was and the line and run game were. They were a complete team on the offensive side anyway. Tonys biggest problem was also the current QB's he payed fro a clown show regime and even bigger clown on sidelines for the bulk of it
NAME STARTS YARDS SUPER BOWL WINS MVP AWARDS 1ST TEAM ALL-PRO PRO BOWLS
Peyton Manning 265 72K 2 5 7 14
Drew Brees 232 66 1 0 1 10
Tom Brady 235 62 5 2 2 12
Eli Manning 199 48 2 0 0 4
Ben Roethlisberger 183 47 2 0 0 5
Philip Rivers 176 46 0 0 0 6
Carson Palmer 174 44 0 0 0 3
Aaron Rodgers 135 37 1 2 2 6
Tony Romo 127 34 0 0 0 4
Romo’s career totals aren’t as impressive as his peers’

Apparently you aren't good at reading either and posted the chart that you wanted to support your conclusion rather than the other chart in the article. The article isn't saying what you think it is either.

TheMarathonContinues · Mar 27, 2020

Super_Kazuya said:
Why do you have a dead, wack rapper as an avatar? Stay on topic... and learn to read. None of this supports the drivel coming out of your mouth.

Why do you think I have a "dead wack rapper" as my avatar? Why do you have the crypt keeper as your avatar? Someone old enough to be your child?

Hawkeye0202 · Mar 27, 2020

TwoDeep3 said:
I have wrestled with this since it happened. I have been an open critic of Romo when he was the starter. Let me qualify that. I cheered his successes, but did not ignore his failures. And said so.

During 2016 I, like so many, were surprised at the success of the team. Thirteen and three was a tremendous ride. I leaned toward staying with the streak and not putting Romo back in when he was healthy. Hindsight is always correct, so my changing my opinion on that decision by the team and what they should have done doesn't make me right back then. Some will say it doesn't make me right now.

Garrett should have had the guts to put Romo in week 14 against the Giants and let him play the string out. I think a case could be made the team would have won out in the regular season. Romo brought something Dak did not and that was the long game.

I very much would like to have seen that offense with the potential of the long ball and how that would have affected the Green Bay defense in the play-off game. Especially how it would have freed up Zeke to run wild.

This is not a knock on Dak as much as it is an admission Romo would have been so hyper focused to take the team all the way.

People will argue. That is the nature of this board. But I believe, as special as the team was in '16, Garrett made a huge mistake, either allowing Jerry to make that decision, or not having the guts to make one himself.

With the impetus of sitting throughout most of the season, Romo and his pride would have pushed him to show the team and the world he was still a top notch QB.

The argument is Romo would have gotten hurt.

Then put Dak back in. Duh!

Surely I could be wrong.

But I damn sure would have liked to see an amped up Romo with Zeke's running game and that offensive line, motivated and focused in a rematch against Green Bay playing in Dallas.

I had my doubts about Romo in big games. Too many times he threw critical interceptions. This board was vehement it was always the defense. It was not.

I cannot help but think Dallas would have put Green Bay away in the play-off game and walk through to the championship game. Just my opinion, from a guy who was critical of Romo when he failed.

Hindsight has a component of regret. In this instance it also contains the sadness of that last second loss to Rodgers.

Good post.......like I said, I thought they'd ride Dak until his inexperience would beg for Romos' return, particularly during the playoff.

TheMarathonContinues · Mar 27, 2020

Super_Kazuya said:
Apparently you aren't good at reading either and posted the chart that you wanted to support your conclusion rather than the other chart in the article. The article isn't saying what you think it is either.

Now you are telling the person who posted it what the article means. Do you need the author to tell you what it means or are you going to continue to show your age?

Philmonroe · Mar 27, 2020

rocyaice said:
And here comes his friendly cousin from the basement. All we need is MattJames to poke his egghead in here and the 3 stooges will be back at it again like cooked crack.

You're the regular 9to5 worker sir not me so I'd chill on the basement talk. I'm just keeping it honest you're a Dak groupie and its not because of actual football play smh.

TheMarathonContinues · Mar 27, 2020

Hawkeye0202 said:
Good post.......like I said, I thought they'd ride Dak until his inexperience would beg for Romos' return, particularly during the playoff.

I honestly thought that too. Not that I would've agreed with it but I thought that was the plan. And I think it may have been. I seem to remember them saying like by week 6 or 7 he'd come back. But that date kept getting pushed back to the point you couldn't bring him back IMO.

Kevinicus · Mar 27, 2020

rocyaice said:
I'd take 2019 Dak over 2019 Brees. Now 2016 Brees is another story.

Brees had his most efficient year of his career in 2019. Besting his 2nd most efficient in 2018.

TwoDeep3 · Mar 27, 2020

rocyaice said:
Few things.....

its been reported it was a Garrett decision to stick with Dak. Not Jerry. I think its safe to say that Jerry loved Romo enough to put him back in if he wanted to make that call.

You had the option of putting Dak back in if Romo got hurt........but a good coach wouldn't do that. You don't mess up that run. Mind you Dak at the time had durability, youth and mobility on his side.

I too was a Romo fan of the time. Probably not as critical of him as you were. But I saw enough from Romo and this team in general to know they would've found a way to lose. They always did. 2016 was no different. Whether it was the defense giving up a big play at the end of the game, Garrett leaving too much time on the clock and having clock management issues......they would've found a way to lose. Look at 2014...everything lined up perfect for them. Even in 2007. Something always came up to rear its ugly head.

I do not believe it was a Garrett decision. I also do not believe Jerry demured to a Garrett decision because his love of Romo. Not calling you out, but perhaps your source for that comment.

Looking back over the history of the league that I have seen, I only recall a few times when a QB that was hurt lost his job without ever being on the field again. I think Frank Reich with Buffalo. I could be wrong in this. But the standard from coach to coach is a player does not lose his starting position due to injury.

Your prediction of they would find a way to lose is subjective and ignores the fact they did just that. As they did during 2007 and 2014. But circumstances in those two seasons does not dictate what 2016 would have been with Romo.

I would have loved to see him jacked up and ready to play.

Kevinicus · Mar 27, 2020

rocyaice said:
That 2006 season would be a microcosm of Romo’s career: a long time spent on the bench, statistical output that rivals the best of his generation, and eventually an underwhelming end. In the playoffs, Romo bobbled the snap on a game-winning field-goal attempt during a wild card game against the Seattle Seahawks, a moment that began a run of playoff futility that none of his peers experienced.

Why don't you defend your wife and children this hard?

Anyone that goes back to the field goal snap has lost any and all arguments, past, present, and future.

TheMarathonContinues · Mar 27, 2020

Philmonroe said:
You're the regular 9to5 worker sir not me so I'd chill on the basement talk. I'm just keeping it honest you're a Dak groupie and its not because of actual football play smh.

9 to 5 worker >>>>>basement living with his grandma because his mom told him if he didn't move out the house by 50 she would kick him out.......

Twitter: Romo comments on losing his starting job to Dak

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member