Another nice article debunking the Romo cannot carry a team myth

[jrumann59]

I think Romo's standing is slowing working its way towards Jim Everettville. I mean Everett was on some bad teams but I can only imagine how bad those teams would have been if he wasn't there. Given at the end of his career he was so shell shocked he panicked when a ref got near him.

 

[TwoDeep3]

cml750 said: Romo is not and has never been the reason why this team has not had a lot of playoff success.

Since this team has been to the playoffs exactly twice under Romo's leadership, and are 1-2, he has as much to do with the losing as every other player that hit the field in those games.

cml750 said: Without him we would not even sniff the playoffs.

Strawman argument. With him we have not really sniffed the play-offs a great deal either.

cml750 said: Some people seem to forget the QB hell we were in between Aikman and Romo.

Another strawman argument. Those years have nothing to do with these years. The play-offs made and not made under Romo don't spell success in three inch headlines. Just like every other player that suited up for Dallas in those games.

cml750 said: Unfortunately we have wasted a lot of Romo's prime years on Wade Phillips and Garrett trying to be both the HC and OC.

More likely the years were wasted when Jerry Jones elected to move down in drafts and making the comment that he is not going to pay starter money for back-ups, then going out and drafting crapola. If we are going to assign some type of blame here, then let's put all the cards on the table.

But with two straight years of win or go home games, and Romo having a hand in the losses just like every other player because as we are reminded - THIS IS A TEAM GAME - then Romo has a hand in wasting his time under center along with everyone else.

cml750 said: I really think we have a real good chance to have a "special" season this year and Tony Romo will be a HUGE part of it!!!!!

Hyperbole based on emotions without much facts. The pre-season is two games in and as yet the fans for sure, if not the coaching staff and everyone but Jerry with the liquid powered mouth have no clue what this team will be. Injuries and failure by the trenches can doom this season like season's past. While every year people hail the schedule as being favorable, I'd suggest this season has quite a few hand wringing games in it against some pretty fair talent. So what this season will produce is unknown at this time, and does have a pall of difficulty associated with the line-up of opponents.

So emotion aside, it is too early to tell, and this is STILL an 8-8 team until it proves different.

Romo is a good to very good quarterback.

But Romo also makes boneheaded sandlot choices at critical times and does lose games - both because of the team and because its his mindset that he can make the play when risk/reward favors being conservative.

What really gets to me is the faction here that comes to his rescue denying any event that sheds a negative light on Romo as if his gaudy numbers absolve him of all responsibility in games.

I see this as unbridled emotional baggage filled with hope and ignoring that he, just like every other player on the team, and all the coaches, up to and including the management and GM make mistakes that add up to disappointment.

Garrett mentioned being mentally tough. There is a difference between playing when you are hurting and having the mental toughness to calm yourself when the events surrounding your play have a higher premium.

Some argue that this is mathematically inaccurate.

But an interception, fumble, blown pass coverage, missed sack or tackle in the last three minutes of a game where you are losing, when the truth suggests if you lose the game your season is over, does have a higher pay-off for success, and is more costly if you fail than plays earlier in the season.

Romo has a big hand in the success of this team.

He also has a big hand in the failure of this team. It comes with the position he plays, the money he makes, and the fact that he touches the ball on every play.

When the big lights shine the brightest, the big players show up and get the job done. Simple as that.

Sometimes Romo is a big player surrounded by failure.

Sometimes the failure is all his.

 

[cowboys1985]

Romo is the greatest qb of all-time.

Lol go ahead and say what you want. Article neither original poster nor I said that all. But go ahead.

This is a useless debate. Bottom line i just wanted to say this was a great article and props to the OP for sharing it.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Lol go ahead and say what you want. Article neither original poster nor I said that all. But go ahead.

This is a useless debate. Bottom line i just wanted to say this was a great article and props to the OP for sharing it.

I prefer cheerleaders to be in short skirts, have great legs, be female, and give the allure of accessibility, even if I am old enough to be their grandfather.

I don't really get stoked over some barco-lounger quarterback blogger that sings praises of specific players or the team that is 8-8 and can't seem to get invited to the dance, much less win it.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Generally in sports, when you say a guy "carried" a team.. that usually means the team went somewhere besides to an early offseason or early playoff exit.

Romo may have played well in the past for us.. but he has yet to "carry" us anywhere.

 

[Lonestar94]

I think the "choker" label is driven into people head's so hard that they can't even see how great Romo is. They always want more, more more more.

The media can do alot but the stats and play on the field stand for themselves.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I think the "choker" label is driven into people head's so hard that they can't even see how great Romo is. They always want more, more more more.

The media can do alot but the stats and play on the field stand for themselves.

So then why is the stat for win or go home sitting at 1-6 for Romo and that stats doesn't count for jack squat?

 

[Lonestar94]

So then why is the stat for win or go home sitting at 1-6 for Romo and that stats doesn't count for jack squat?

For Romo? You mean the team?

You clearly did not read the article.

 

[TwoDeep3]

For Romo? You mean the team?

You clearly did not read the article.

I clearly did read this article.

I see the marching orders for those who believe Romo has no flaws or makes no mistakes.

This is how you win the argument - it professes.

Bias has two definitions.

A stupid-arse that took cocaine right after being drafted by the Celtics and dying young.

A position that ignores all the facts to cheery pick in support of a position.

 

[Prossman]

I believe Romo can lead this team, but I also know his teams have not won when it counts. Tony has been asked to do to much in recent years. Last year our running game was the worst in cowboy history and our defense was decimated by seasons end. Romo getting hot was the reason we went 8-8. The bottom line was in the win or go home game, Tony didn't play well, throwing the game losing INT, in the loss to the skins, and we went home again. Last years team would have been to the playoffs had we not lost all the center of our defense like we did. Has we spent the money on one all pro guard vs 2 scrubs we would have made the playoffs, regardless of Tony. As they say "If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts". I think our switch to the 4-3 helps this team tremendously. Fredrick and Leary will help this offense, though I still want Waters or another goods guard for the RG spot. Getting to the playoffs and winning in the playoffs is tied around Romo's neck, as it should be, he is the qb. We do that and Tony will get respect.

 

[dstovall5]

I clearly did read this article.

I see the marching orders for those who believe Romo has no flaws or makes no mistakes.

This is how you win the argument - it professes.

Bias has two definitions.

A stupid-arse that took cocaine right after being drafted by the Celtics and dying young.
A position that ignores all the facts to cheery pick in support of a position.

If you want to talk about a cherry picked stat, then go ahead and talk about that W/L "win or go home record". People who don't really like Romo like to "cherry pick" those 7 games you just mentioned in your previous post, yet he has started in 86 other games. Those 7 games only represent 13% of his games started. Now that's cherry picking.

Logic of people who dislike Romo - "I know he's started in 86 other games in his career, but instead I'm going to look at those other 7 games to define Romo in my perspective."

Logically thinking you would look at the larger sample size to get a more accurate representation, but I guess people wouldn't do that because then it wouldn't really fit their perspective of Romo. No surprise here though, shouldn't expect much from some of these Cowboy fans.

 

[TwoDeep3]

First, I like Romo and am thankful he plays for Dallas and not against Dallas.

But the onslaught of rebuttal from fans like you who want to include all these personal stats and yet remind it is a team game while ignoring the stats in the losses in the "win or the season is over games" - win or no play-off games, how is that not the very same?

Oh, it is quantity that makes a difference and allows some to disregard losses.

You missed the point if you think I believe that is all Romo is about. But when you and others and especially a few on these boards and the author of that article bring out the gaudy stats and quarterback ratings and make excuses and overlook the times when Romo erred, how is that somehow acceptable?

How are those stats not cherrypicked to remove the times when he clearly played like crap and lost games?

But please, since i have really never discussed this with you before. If you intend to join that ilk that want to assign more value to the positive things and less to the negative - then you have to learn to toss in the comment "Haters gonna hate."

I think that is one of the bylaws of the Romo union and printed on the back of the union card or something.

 

[dstovall5]

First, I like Romo and am thankful he plays for Dallas and not against Dallas.

But the onslaught of rebuttal from fans like you who want to include all these personal stats and yet remind it is a team game while ignoring the stats in the losses in the "win or the season is over games" - win or no play-off games, how is that not the very same?

I've never ignored Romo's play in those games, and in my post history you'd see that. If you want you can feel free to search, because what you said just isn't true. Most people here understand he has played bad in those games.

Oh, it is quantity that makes a difference and allows some to disregard losses.

Some may disregard those losses, but If you think that I AM disregarding those losses, then you're wrong again. This works both ways though, you have some fans who completely ignore those losses, then you have some fans that that's what they mainly look at. There's a bigger whole picture.

But when you and others and especially a few on these boards and the author of that article bring out the gaudy stats and quarterback ratings and make excuses and overlook the times when Romo erred, how is that somehow acceptable?

How are those stats not cherrypicked to remove the times when he clearly played like crap and lost games?

Not sure why you mentioned me in that, but you're wrong yet again. Talking for myself here, I've never overlooked "the times when Romo erred". If you can find these posts, please enlighten me because I sure as heck don't remember. I've posted before that Romo does need to play better in those situations, but I also think the team needs to step up as well - not just Romo. I've stated quite a bit how Romo was in horrible position to succeed last year(horrible o-line/running game/defense), maybe this is what you're calling an "excuse"? I don't look at that as an "excuse", just a reason why this team failed to make the playoffs last year.

You missed the point if you think I believe that is all Romo is about.

I don't think you believe that that's all he's about. I responded to you because you brought up the 1-6 "win or go home" record then you brought up the "cherry pick" post. I found that very ironic. The 1-6 "win or go home" record is a cherry picked stat.Then you just brought up a bunch of other nonsense that simply isn't true. I guess you were mainly talking about some others, but if you're talking about me you've completely missed the point of what I think of Romo.


I'm already a "Romo Stan", so I wanna join this "Romo Union" as well.

Haters gonna hate!

 

[visionary]

Generally in sports, when you say a guy "carried" a team.. that usually means the team went somewhere besides to an early offseason or early playoff exit.

Romo may have played well in the past for us.. but he has yet to "carry" us anywhere.

I like romo but this is a fact

 

[DanteEXT]

Since this team has been to the playoffs exactly twice under Romo's leadership, and are 1-2, he has as much to do with the losing as every other player that hit the field in those games.

Since you are counting a win that means the 2009 season was under his leadership. So was it 2006 or 2007 that you don't consider the Cowboys making the playoffs under Romo's leadership?

 

[zack]

I think that all of us want Romo to be successful this season and beyond. We might just have a good offensive line, which we haven't in quite a few years since he has been a starter. Secondly, we might just have a solid running game, which again, we haven't had in quite a few years. Third, we might just have a defense that will actually generate turnovers, which we have never really had since Romo has been a starter.

If there is good pass to run ratio offensive side of the ball and a defense that can get close to 30 turnovers this season, we might have a good chance of going deep in the playoffs. By having these things, the QB can really benefit, see Joe Flacco, Eli Manning, Rothesburger, etc. I think a lot of can say that Romo's talent is equal to or greater than these guys, but have benefited from the team around them.

 

[CyberB0b]

Romo could have easily debunked this crap with a win over the Commanders. He had the ball with a chance to win at the end of the game, but threw a pick on a dump off pass.

 

[FiveRings]

This is a great article. I'm always up for anything pro-Romo. He really doesn't get enough credit for 2011, from doing what he did in San Fran to posting a solid performance with a hand the size of a balloon, and everything in between.

It sucks to think if our D didn't collapse weekly that could have been our year. Everything on the other side of the ball just clicked.

 

[Gameover]

Why are you guys always arguing about QB's? They're all overrated - Monte Wright

Truer words have never been spoken

 

[dooomsday]

Generally in sports, when you say a guy "carried" a team.. that usually means the team went somewhere besides to an early offseason or early playoff exit.

Romo may have played well in the past for us.. but he has yet to "carry" us anywhere.

Yeah, he carried us early in the season during the 2nd halves of games versus bad teams.

Which of course means you can extrapolate that over to winning play off games versus the best teams in the league. Its simple logic.

Then when he has the chance to actually win one of those big games theyre saying he can, like the win or go home game against Washington, and he throws 3 unforced picks with the last one sending us home after which even he takes responsibility for letting his team down..... its everyone elses fault!

Its good to be Romo.