BR: Tony Romo Has Not Only Been the Best Version of Himself, He Might Be the NFL MVP

[percyhoward]

Now we can impose our will. Romo understands that.

Most people understand that.

NFL Rank in Conversion Percentage
Dallas Rushing
2010-2013
short yardage: 21st
in red zone: 26th
inside opp 5: 30th
goal line: 25th

2014
short yardage: 11th
in red zone: 13th
inside opp 5: 7th
goal line: 1st

These are percentages. They don't go up because an offense is throwing less. They go up because it's running better.

 

[goshan]

YR, you have been schooled. Honestly, I would bow out.
Your comments are far more emotional and opinion than others who apply analysis.
Cause and effect is pretty basic stuff, which the vast majority of the time is true when looking at pass attempts.

Your points are valid in a few areas...for example, I agree Romo has audibled too much prior to this year. He does hold on to the ball too long overall. In my opinion, his performance is more about maturity and things slowing down for him than it is about pass attempts. But without rushing, we could not be scoring/winning with less pass attempts. That's cause and effect.

Not trying to make this a personal attack because you add a ton of value here , but honestly this 'less is more' thing is really not helping your contribution...

 

[Redball Express]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong. Romo, as he has been for the last eight years or so, is the MVP of this team.

at least there is a real debate about this.

Murray to me is the cowbell and Romo is benefiting from it hugely.

To me..easy argument to settle.

Logic would dictate the question..

If it were not for DeMarco Murray..where would Romo be?

Still struggling to do it all himself and losing opportunities.

We've all seen those results.

Murray makes the difference.

But Dez has contributed mightily, too.

What it is..

we have the Triplets back again.

Together..they are greater than the sum of their parts.

There.

 

[Red Dragon]

Blatantly taken out of context.

My point was the same as Avezzano’s, at that time it would best for *Romo* and the Cowboys to part ways because Romo wasn’t getting the help he needed (particularly from the coaching staff) and every time he screwed up, even if it wasn’t his fault, he was suddenly the worst QB ever. It was clearly playing into his psyche and on the team’s psyche and that he could win elsewhere with better coaching and a defense that didn’t put him in situations where you can possibly fail.


Again, taken out of context (you have a real faculty for doing that). At the *rate* we extended him, it was a horrendous move. He is a QB in his 30’s that had years left on his contract and had only won 1 playoff victory. Yet, we were willing to pay him far more than he would’ve gotten on the open market (which was still a couple of years away when he’s not getting any younger). And there was the idea that Jerry kept pitching of Romo playing until he’s 40.

If Andrew Luck was extended for $200 million when the Colts could get him for $120 million, it would be a horrendous move to extend Luck at that rate.

And I never said he was a ‘bad QB’ or ‘we need to get rid of him’ either. But, don’t let facts get in the way of your vendetta.


Yep,
Never said he was a ‘bad QB’ and never said ‘we must get rid of him.’
You like to make things up.
Y’know who also said he didn’t understand ‘basic situational football?’ Jimmy Johnson and Tony Dungy. Crazy, I know. Must be completely anti-Tony Romo. Maybe you should stalk them as well.


Yeah. That’s what I’ve been saying now with the ‘less is more.’
It not only applies to the pass attempts, but the audibles as well. It’s not that he can’t audible, he just audibles too often. It makes it more difficult on the O-Line. And he also has a tendency to not stick in the pocket and move around *in* the pocket and instead moves out towards the tackles which doesn’t do the O-line any favors.
Like when we played Tampa in 2011 and Romo had a wide open Miles Austin right at the goal line, but for whatever reason didn’t seen him, then for whatever reason backed up into Doug Free and then made a whirly bird escape and then finally saw Austin open and fired it for a TD. Who got all of the credit on that play? Romo. Who got all of the blame? Free. And it was Romo that made the bad play and made Free look bad. Thankfully Romo escaped and redeemed himself. But, obsequious lapdogs like yourself wouldn’t know the difference of what actually happened.

Saying that somebody has 'bad fundamentals' doesn't mean they are a 'bad player.' Lance Alworth had terrible fundamentals, but he was a Hall of Fame receiver. I guess that flies over your head.



Yup.

Still didn’t say ‘he’s a bad QB’ nor did I say ‘we should get rid of him.’
And do you really believe that Romo is at his physical peak at this point in his career? Really?
I don’t think Romo would even tell you that.
Just more reason for why less is more with Romo.



Still on yours.
Sorry..

Didn’t say ‘he’s a bad QB’ nor did I say ‘we should get rid of him’ other than what you blatantly took out of context by saying that it would be best for *Romo* because the team was so lousy. The egg goes on the face of the person that has to resort to taking things out of context because…well, it says it all about that person.
It also goes to the person that really questions me saying that Romo is nowhere near his physical peak anymore.
I don’t think that passes the laugh test.
Sorry..

But, less is more with Romo. And I’ve been saying it for years. And now we are seeing it come into fruition. I know it really burns you to see that I was right about Romo all along. So, you can chew on that for a while.

YR

Be a man, YR. Show some sportsmanship when you lose.


Anyone can dodge and whine when confronted, but it takes a real man to stand up and eat his words.

 

[Staubacher]

You are spinning like mad.

Take to heart your own catchphrase - less of your Tony Romo musings is more.

Blatantly taken out of context.

My point was the same as Avezzano’s, at that time it would best for *Romo* and the Cowboys to part ways because Romo wasn’t getting the help he needed (particularly from the coaching staff) and every time he screwed up, even if it wasn’t his fault, he was suddenly the worst QB ever. It was clearly playing into his psyche and on the team’s psyche and that he could win elsewhere with better coaching and a defense that didn’t put him in situations where you can possibly fail.


Again, taken out of context (you have a real faculty for doing that). At the *rate* we extended him, it was a horrendous move. He is a QB in his 30’s that had years left on his contract and had only won 1 playoff victory. Yet, we were willing to pay him far more than he would’ve gotten on the open market (which was still a couple of years away when he’s not getting any younger). And there was the idea that Jerry kept pitching of Romo playing until he’s 40.

If Andrew Luck was extended for $200 million when the Colts could get him for $120 million, it would be a horrendous move to extend Luck at that rate.

And I never said he was a ‘bad QB’ or ‘we need to get rid of him’ either. But, don’t let facts get in the way of your vendetta.


Yep,
Never said he was a ‘bad QB’ and never said ‘we must get rid of him.’
You like to make things up.
Y’know who also said he didn’t understand ‘basic situational football?’ Jimmy Johnson and Tony Dungy. Crazy, I know. Must be completely anti-Tony Romo. Maybe you should stalk them as well.


Yeah. That’s what I’ve been saying now with the ‘less is more.’
It not only applies to the pass attempts, but the audibles as well. It’s not that he can’t audible, he just audibles too often. It makes it more difficult on the O-Line. And he also has a tendency to not stick in the pocket and move around *in* the pocket and instead moves out towards the tackles which doesn’t do the O-line any favors.
Like when we played Tampa in 2011 and Romo had a wide open Miles Austin right at the goal line, but for whatever reason didn’t seen him, then for whatever reason backed up into Doug Free and then made a whirly bird escape and then finally saw Austin open and fired it for a TD. Who got all of the credit on that play? Romo. Who got all of the blame? Free. And it was Romo that made the bad play and made Free look bad. Thankfully Romo escaped and redeemed himself. But, obsequious lapdogs like yourself wouldn’t know the difference of what actually happened.

Saying that somebody has 'bad fundamentals' doesn't mean they are a 'bad player.' Lance Alworth had terrible fundamentals, but he was a Hall of Fame receiver. I guess that flies over your head.



Yup.

Still didn’t say ‘he’s a bad QB’ nor did I say ‘we should get rid of him.’
And do you really believe that Romo is at his physical peak at this point in his career? Really?
I don’t think Romo would even tell you that.
Just more reason for why less is more with Romo.



Still on yours.
Sorry..

Didn’t say ‘he’s a bad QB’ nor did I say ‘we should get rid of him’ other than what you blatantly took out of context by saying that it would be best for *Romo* because the team was so lousy. The egg goes on the face of the person that has to resort to taking things out of context because…well, it says it all about that person.
It also goes to the person that really questions me saying that Romo is nowhere near his physical peak anymore.
I don’t think that passes the laugh test.
Sorry..

But, less is more with Romo. And I’ve been saying it for years. And now we are seeing it come into fruition. I know it really burns you to see that I was right about Romo all along. So, you can chew on that for a while.

YR

 

[TrailBlazer]

Tony has played well. But no shot at MVP this year. Murray will be in that conversation with Rodgers and Brady and manning. Tony would have to throw 45 TD's. We run the ball too much for that. Which tony needs to be successful. He has played well outside of the first game and another game I can't remember. But we all know it's all about how he performs in the playoffs.

 

[TrailBlazer]

There are legit gripes about romo in years past. Some of the meltdowns. You are a prisoner of the moment if you think otherwise. But this year he's been really good, given help. But murray is ahead of romo in MVP talks this year.

 

[dfan32]

Should Romo be in consideration? Maybe.

But he will never win it. No way. The narrative is that the success of this offense comes from the revamped o-line and Murray chasing 2,000 yards. And because of this, Romo hasn't had to take chances like years past. In other words, Romo won't get credit for the success of this team.

I don't agree with that narrative, but that's what's out there. Romo won't get the benefit out the doubt the way Aaron Rodgers and several others do. Heck, people still throw Romo and Jay Cutler in the same group.

Couldn't agree more. This years version of Drew Brees is a perfect example. He's had a terrible season and done some of the same things Romo has always been chastised for. But you don't hear much about it. Really just about everything the Cowboys do badly is magnified because of their popularity. So many people, lovers and haters, follow the Cowboy's and soak up all the reports they can get their hands on, that the media outlets feel they have to feed the masses. It's actually a bit confusing, considering the Cowboy's have been rather ordinary for over twenty years now.

 

[Risen Star]

There are legit gripes about romo in years past. Some of the meltdowns. You are a prisoner of the moment if you think otherwise. But this year he's been really good, given help. But murray is ahead of romo in MVP talks this year.

Couldn't disagree more. The Cowboys could stand to lose Murray a heck of lot more than Romo. It's not even close.

 

[perrykemp]

Couldn't agree more. This years version of Drew Brees is a perfect example. He's had a terrible season and done some of the same things Romo has always been chastised for. But you don't hear much about it.

Is Brees in decline? ->Yes

Has Brees has a substandard season compared to his career averages in New Orleans? -> Yes

Has Drew Brees been "terrible" this season? -> No, unless you consider 31 TDs vs 12 INTs and a 101.4 QB rating terrible...

 

[TrailBlazer]

Couldn't disagree more. The Cowboys could stand to lose Murray a heck of lot more than Romo. It's not even close.

Well yeah. It's not even debatable. The qb position is more important and valuable. But murray is ahead of romo in the MVP race league wide. Because of his stats. Whether he is more pertinent to our success or not. Romo hasn't been in those discussions. Murray has.

 

[DandyDon1722]

Rich - you're a good poster who loves the Cowboys and I don't see the need to pile on. At the end of the day nobody would argue if your are throwing 40-50 times a game bad things will eventually happen. Denver and Green Bay are perfect examples of that. Less is more, you're right.

And -- I think most would agree that Tony audibled a bit much out of plays.

But you simply cannot win the rest of this argument. And if you were really honest with yourself -- in your write ups (which I enjoy) you have always looked at Tony as a necessary evil rather than a valued commodity. I am in no way labeling you a Romo hater - the ten percenters who are have disappeared and it's obviously personal.

There's no shame in admitting you were wrong about certain things and moving on. We are all wrong on a lot of stuff in here - that's why it's a message board, but don't try to defense the indefensible.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Same is said about your postings.

Don't like 'em...don't read 'em.

Pretty simple actually.




YR

 

[Risen Star]

Well yeah. It's not even debatable. The qb position is more important and valuable. But murray is ahead of romo in the MVP race league wide. Because of his stats.

Well, if that's the case, those people wouldn't know what they're talking about.

Murray's not even the 2nd or 3rd most valuable player on this team. He's a product of the OL.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Rich - you're a good poster who loves the Cowboys and I don't see the need to pile on. At the end of the day nobody would argue if your are throwing 40-50 times a game bad things will eventually happen. Denver and Green Bay are perfect examples of that. Less is more, you're right.

And -- I think most would agree that Tony audibled a bit much out of plays.

But you simply cannot win the rest of this argument. And if you were really honest with yourself -- in your write ups (which I enjoy) you have always looked at Tony as a necessary evil rather than a valued commodity. I am in no way labeling you a Romo hater - the ten percenters who are have disappeared and it's obviously personal.

There's no shame in admitting you were wrong about certain things and moving on. We are all wrong on a lot of stuff in here - that's why it's a message board, but don't try to defense the indefensible.

What am I wrong on?

Less is more with Romo.

That's what I stated in the beginning. That's what I got 'called out on.'

You're telling me that I am right. But now I have to admit I'm wrong? Makes no sense.

And apparently there ARE people that would argue that if you are throwing 40-50 times a game...that's fine because in their mind, less is not more about Romo. In fact, we had one poster argue with me that Romo is at his physical peak right now. Sometimes, you just can't make that stuff up.





YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

When you talk about Romo and his throwing efficiency based on number of attempts you're looking at causation rather than correlation.

There is nothing magical that happens on the 40th pass attempt that makes Romo suck.

Why do the statistical splits say differently?

And it's actually on the 36th attempt, by the way.

I perfectly know causation and correlation (I deal with it every day at work). His performance on his passes dips on pass attempts 35+. In pass attempts 20-35 hie's very good.

But to get to 40 attempts probably a lot of bad things are happening in the game and you're probably behind in the ballgame.

Like we were behind in the KC game last year when we threw the ball 51 times and ran it 9 times? Oh wait...we weren't down at all (significantly). But, we decided to throw the ball 85% of the time for whatever reason. And the offense stalled, Romo didn't perform that well.

Less is more with Romo.

As for less audibles (first let's never reference hatcher again).... But Romo audibles because we could only run successful in favorable situations. Now we can impose our will. Romo understands that.

Really?

How successful did we run the ball against the Eagles on Sunday night?

And we ran the ball 31 times.

Don't know of those favorable situations when the Eagles are stacking 8 and 9 in the box and we are still running.

Instead, as Garrett said in a PC earlier this year, you have to run the ball in unfavorable situations and get through those 'ugly' runs where you only gain 1 or 2 yards to set up for other runs and for bigger pass plays.

Again, less is more with Romo.

This wasn't learned a while ago when we played the Packers and threw the ball time and time again back in *2010* against the Packers and Dom Capers replied that he kept on blitzing because he knew that Dallas had given up on the run and would not run the ball (Capers said that when a team runs against a blitz there's a fear that the offense only has to get past the 1st wave and they are off to a huge play).

Less is more with Romo.




YR

 

[TrailBlazer]

Well, if that's the case, those people wouldn't know what they're talking about.

Murray's not even the 2nd or 3rd most valuable player on this team. He's a product of the OL.

I agree murray is a product of the oline and blocking scheme. I don't think it takes a great back to run for 1,000 in a zone blocking scheme. Think Shanahan's broncos. Just plug in a back and go. I believe romo is the most important piece to this puzzle. No doubt. But I've seen murray getting more love because he's the league leading rusher on a playoff team. Romo would have to throw 40+ TD'S to compete with brady, rodgers, and manning and be a legitimate contender for MVP. Given his reputation as a choker. Some of that is warranted. But he's played well in big games this year. His legacy will be determined on what he does in the playoffs.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I have a friend at work that always talks about a "pitch" count for Tony Romo. His oppinion is that you have to be mindful of his attempts the way abseball managers monitor their pitchers pitch count. Don't know for certain but is sounds like that is what you are suggesting as well.

As for your earlier comment about understanding situational football - i wll agree that there are times i just figuratively scartch my head (really i yell at the tv) when romo does certain things.

An example would be the sack he took during the eagles game on 3rd and 1 after holding the ball for 4-5 seconds... on 3rd and 1 ? The replay suggested he was looking deep downfiled to Dez who was double covered. The eagles had just scored very quickly and i was thinking keep the drive going, jeep our defense off the field and give time to adjust to what the eagles just did. Its 3rd and 1 at nearly midfield, make sure of the first down to keep the drive going. It even looked like he could have run for it. That play bothered me.

The sack-fumble on 3rd and 19 allowed the eagles to go ahead - cant hold the ball so long there.

But he did come back after that and play really great. And i noticed he was getting rid of the ball much quicker the rest of the game.

And there were times in the past - not so much this year - when he would force the ball in the first quarter when we were tied or ahead and throw a pick. Its not necessary to force things in that situation - in the 4th quarter, yes. But not in the first quarter, and even on early downs he just wouldnt throw the ball away and try next down and a lot of times bad things happen. I know he can and does make amazing plays doing that sometimes, but in the fisrt quarter of a tie game or a game with a lead its not the time for those heroics.


There are a lot of things Tony does really well. The holding the ball a long time and the situatinal awareness just happen to be pet peeves of mine.

Or the debacle before the 2 minute warning against Houston. The goal was to, at the very least, get the Texans to use all of their timeouts.

We start off with a 1-yard run with Murray, making it 2nd and 9.

Then the Texans call a timeout.

Off the timeout...Romo audibles and audibles and audibles....and we have a delay of game (coming off a timeout).

Now it's 2nd and 14.

We then get a 8-yard gain on a short screen pass to Harris. This makes it 3rd and 6, but it would have been 3rd and 1 if we didn't have the delay of game (again, coming off a timeout).

Then on 3rd and 6, the idea is to hopefully get a 1st down, but at the very least, complete the pass or take a sack to keep the clock running and force another timeout. Instead, Romo doesn't see Dez open and chucks it over his head and it stops the clock.

Like I mentioned, I'm not the only person that feels this way as both Tony Dungy and Jimmy Johnson have said that Romo has a poor understanding of situational football. I guess they must be irrational Romo haters.





YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Anyway, I'll show you again what I was responding to...


You're attributing the success of the offense to Romo's throwing less. That's backwards. If merely throwing less really led to offensive success, all of the league's bad offenses would simply throw less and start to improve.

This year, we've had so much success running the ball that we haven't needed to throw as much. The reason for the success in the running game is the recent influx of offensive line talent. The cause of the "far more effective offense" is the improved running game. One of the effects is that we throw it less. Or in your words, "less Romo."

If all the Cowboys had to do to improve offensively was for Romo to throw it less, then Dallas wasted three 1st-round picks on offensive linemen in 2011, 2013, and 2014.

It still doesn't explain the stat splits on hits 20-35 attempts and more than 35+ attempts. Not for the *game*, but on those stats alone.

The Packers game was a perfect example. We ran the ball *tremendously* well. But, we stopped running the ball and kept throwing the ball and that led to...2 interceptions.

If 'less is not more' with Romo, I think we would agree that he's getting excellent pass protection. And we *know* that the team that passes more effectively wins in the NFL 80% of the time. So if that's the case, then by your logic we should be throwing *more* this year to take advantage of the O-Line's pass protection and Romo's ability.





YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I mean, I agree with the premise of everything you've said, but this is only true if there is still competent QB play. the OL between late 09-12 was really, really bad. I wanted to run it more, but not sure if would have been significantly more effective.

In '06 Romo was extremely effective. And the O-Line and the running game...well, wasn't very good. But, Parcells has the philosophy to stick with the run. And given that it was his 1st year as a starter, he was incredibly effective under Parcells. From there, we added TO and actually had a good O-Line in '07. Romo's production was excellent, but he made too many turnovers. And from there we started to see more of the same until 2009 when he really started to work to protect the ball. But, his big play ability became less.

The KC game last year was a great example. We just threw the ball because we had no patience for the running game not getting going early on. The game was well within reach and we threw the ball 51 times and ran it 9 times.

If we had the same philosophy last year and let Romo freely audible out of run plays...we would have thrown the ball about 50 times against the Eagles.

This makes the offense easier to figure out. And then it is harder to pull off the big pass play and we become a dink-n-dunk offense that often times has to do a lot things correctly just to complete a 6 or 7 yard pass.

A few weeks ago Garrett talked about this....you have to stick with the run, even when they have 8 or 9 in the box. And you have to stick with the run even when you get those 'ugly' runs (his words, not mine) that may only gain a yard or two.

I think they are finally getting it and how the run can work to help supplement the passing game. And that is creating less Romo than we are used to and it is creating a more productive Romo and a more productive offense.

Amazing how that concept offends people.





YR