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

[burmafrd]

Find a QB that does not have a worse record when he throws more than 35 passes a game then when he throws less.

YR refuses to admit the obvious.

 

[gbrittain]

I guess this year Less Is Less With Romo since on pass attempts 1-10 he has a 95.1 QB passer rating, 11-20 he has a 111.4 rating, 21-30 he has a 124.8 rating and 31+ he has a 130.9 rating.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I agree with what you're saying - I think I misread that quote though. I thought you were saying we would have been a better football team without Tony Romo. Now I think you are saying we would have been a better football team if we had run the ball more, as opposed to just revert to throwing all the time. Which I agree with - we were a very good running team last year but would just get away from it too quickly.

It don't know how much more I can spell it out for people.

The original post is about Romo having an MVP type of year.

I never, not once, disagreed with the notion of him having an MVP type of year.

What I did say is 'less is more with Tony Romo.'

That would preclude to the following reasoning:

If Romo is having an MVP type of year and less is more with Tony Romo...then the problem in the past hasn't been Romo as much as it has been the way we have used him. There has been a problem with him audibling out of running plays in the past, but that is just as much of a coaching issue as a Romo issue.

And as I've mentioned in previous posts, Romo was excellent in 2006 under Parcells and we had an average at best running game along with an O-Line of:

Flozell
Kosier
Gurode
Rivera
Colombo

Our WR's were Terry Glenn, Patrick Crayton and an injured T.O.

And in his 10 starts...we threw the ball 31 times a game. We averaged 110 yards rushing per game on 4.2 yards per carry.

Everything on the offense move quite efficiently because...less is more with Romo.

Conversely, we had last season when we had excellent pass protection and a good running game. We went 'more is more with Romo' EVEN WHEN WE WEREN'T LOSING BY MUCH AND COULD RUN THE BALL WELL....or even worse...EVEN WHEN WE HAD THE LEAD AND WERE RUNNING THE BALL WELL. And he wasn't as effective and the offense didn't move as efficiently.

If Romo is not as good as Rodgers, so be it. Neither is Roethlisberger and he has 2 rings to Rodgers' 1. He's just more effective when there is the *threat* of running the ball. Teams are less likely to blitz and they will try to stack the box and that puts Romo in a favorable situation. And when he's not audibling as much, the offense is more efficient and he is more effective.

The coaching staff and Romo are doing exactly what I've been saying needs to be done and it's paying off dividends for them. And this despite being 34 years old and coming off 2 back surgeries.





YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I guess this year Less Is Less With Romo since on pass attempts 1-10 he has a 95.1 QB passer rating, 11-20 he has a 111.4 rating, 21-30 he has a 124.8 rating and 31+ he has a 130.9 rating.

Nice sample size of 1 year...where he has thrown more than 31 passes in only 3 games. And one game he threw 32 passes (Seattle).

I love how the anti-less is more with Romo crowd uses faulty arguments. It just makes my arguments for me.




YR

 

[Jstopper]

Nice sample size of 1 year...where he has thrown more than 31 passes in only 3 games. And one game he threw 32 passes (Seattle).

I love how the anti-less is more with Romo crowd uses faulty arguments. It just makes my arguments for me.




YR

You're saying the sample size of 1 year is faulty and yet you keep going back to the 1 year of 2013 using the Packers and Chiefs game as an example? Hypocrite much?

 

[Staubacher]

[quote="Yakuza Rich, post: 5865755, member: 1894"

The coaching staff and Romo are doing exactly what I've been saying needs to be done and it's paying off dividends for them. And this despite being 34 years old and coming off 2 back surgeries.YR[/quote]

Romo was traded???

 

[Staubacher]

Nice sample size of 1 year...where he has thrown more than 31 passes in only 3 games. And one game he threw 32 passes (Seattle).

I love how the anti-less is more with Romo crowd uses faulty arguments. It just makes my arguments for me.




YR

Explain again how Romo lacks situational awareness with single digit INTs and multiple game winning drives. I always love to hear your spin on this one.

 

[Ring Leader]

It don't know how much more I can spell it out for people.

What I did say is 'less is more with Tony Romo.'
YR

Is there any quarterback in the league where more is more?

 

[Staubacher]

Is there any quarterback in the league where more is more?

Sure if Rodgers, Manning and Brees threw every down they'd never lose.

But we're stuck with a QB that doesn't know how to play football

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Is there any quarterback in the league where more is more?

To a certain extent, yes. Brady, Peyton, Rodgers...and depending on the season...Brees.

This really goes back to games like the KC and Green Bay game from last season.

We were in the KC game and inexplicably, decided to throw the ball 51 times (on the road nonetheless). We were leading the Packers game and running at 7 yards a clip...but decided to abandon the run and keep throwing the ball.

In the KC game, the offense was stagnant. In the GB game, the offense started to slow down as we kept throwing more and eventually, Romo threw 2 critical interceptions.

Obviously, if a team is really moving the ball well and gets out to a big lead they can run the ball and close out the game for victory. But, I'm not looking at that. I'm looking at how efficiently we are passing the ball and how efficiently Romo is playing (if we lose despite him playing great, there was nothing he could possibly do).

And what we have seen over the years is that we have abandoned the run simply because it's not working that well to start off or we start to get down a little.

Garrett made mention of this in a press conference a few weeks ago...they have to stick with the run even when they have those 'ugly runs' where they only get a yard or so.

This year we haven't abandoned the run when it wasn't working (case in point, the Eagles game on Sunday) and we haven't given up on the run just because we were down (case in point, the Rams game...on the road).

If the defense knows Romo has to pass, he's not as effective as Peyton, Rodgers or Brady when the defense knows they are going to throw the ball. And when we stick with the run, we create more favorable situations for big pass plays which is a strength of Romo.

If Rodgers, Brady and Peyton start throwing the ball more than 45 times, their efficiency tends to drop off. For Romo it's about 35 times. But, we were trying to have him throw it 40-45 times a game...regardless of how well the run was working or whatever the score was.

This year we finally seem to have gotten it.





YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Sure if Rodgers, Manning and Brees threw every down they'd never lose.

But we're stuck with a QB that doesn't know how to play football

Don't know where anybody said that or inferred that.

Nope, not even close.

But, it seems to make you happy to stick your fingers in your ears and go 'LALALALALALALALALA'

Less is more with Romo. I called it a long time ago. Sorry to upset you.




YR

 

[Doomsday101]

To a certain extent, yes. Brady, Peyton, Rodgers...and depending on the season...Brees.

This really goes back to games like the KC and Green Bay game from last season.

We were in the KC game and inexplicably, decided to throw the ball 51 times (on the road nonetheless). We were leading the Packers game and running at 7 yards a clip...but decided to abandon the run and keep throwing the ball.

In the KC game, the offense was stagnant. In the GB game, the offense started to slow down as we kept throwing more and eventually, Romo threw 2 critical interceptions.

Obviously, if a team is really moving the ball well and gets out to a big lead they can run the ball and close out the game for victory. But, I'm not looking at that. I'm looking at how efficiently we are passing the ball and how efficiently Romo is playing (if we lose despite him playing great, there was nothing he could possibly do).

And what we have seen over the years is that we have abandoned the run simply because it's not working that well to start off or we start to get down a little.

Garrett made mention of this in a press conference a few weeks ago...they have to stick with the run even when they have those 'ugly runs' where they only get a yard or so.

This year we haven't abandoned the run when it wasn't working (case in point, the Eagles game on Sunday) and we haven't given up on the run just because we were down (case in point, the Rams game...on the road).

If the defense knows Romo has to pass, he's not as effective as Peyton, Rodgers or Brady when the defense knows they are going to throw the ball. And when we stick with the run, we create more favorable situations for big pass plays which is a strength of Romo.

If Rodgers, Brady and Peyton start throwing the ball more than 45 times, their efficiency tends to drop off. For Romo it's about 35 times. But, we were trying to have him throw it 40-45 times a game...regardless of how well the run was working or whatever the score was.

This year we finally seem to have gotten it.

True but then they do not all run the same offensive system. WCO is designed with the pass in mind. Not all offense are the same.





YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Explain again how Romo lacks situational awareness with single digit INTs and multiple game winning drives. I always love to hear your spin on this one.

Others have pointed this out numerous times. For instance, this year against Houston.

The situation was before the 2 minute warning. At the *very least* we want to get Houston to use all of their timeouts. And if possible, get the first down.

1st and 10 - Run the ball to Murray for 1-yard.

Houston calls their first timeout.

2nd and 9 - Delay of game penalty on Romo (lack of situational awareness and 'less is more with Romo' as we had a delay of game COMING OFF A TIMEOUT).

2nd and 14 - Screen pass to Dwayne Harris for 8 yards. Now it's 3rd and 6. Had we *not* had the delay of game, it would have been 3rd and 1.

Houston calls timeout.

3rd and 6 - When the idea is 'get the first down if you can, but make sure to make Houston use all of their timeouts' which means:

A. Make sure if you throw the ball, it is a safe and complete-able pss.

B. If nobody is there, eat the ball and take the sack because we want Houston to use their last timeout.

Instead, Romo doesn't seem Dez open and throws the ball away.

Bad situational awareness. The delay of game penalty really hurt us on that drive and not eating the ball and taking the sack on 3rd and 6 was just a lack of awareness about the situation.

You should ask Tony Dungy and Jimmy Johnson, both of whom agree with me that Romo has a lack of understanding situational football. And it's funny how you forget the multiple game clinching losses that have come off Romo interceptions and fumbles. Or like the Philly game on Sunday night where he held onto the ball for 7-8 seconds, got sacked from behind and Philly then went up 24-21. I guess that is 'good situational awareness.'




YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

True but then they do not all run the same offensive system. WCO is designed with the pass in mind. Not all offense are the same.

Very true. But, Brady and Peyton don't use a WCO offense. Peyton uses a pretty similar offense to our scheme and Brady uses the Perkins system which is still pretty similar, but the language is different.

Granted, Rodgers is in a full-blown WCO. Brees is in a weird mix of WCO and a Zampese type scheme, similar to what Jim Fassel used to run under the Giants (Sean Payton's former boss).




YR

 

[Staubacher]

Thanks. You didn't disappoint. Ever thought of deejaying a classic rock station?

Others have pointed this out numerous times. For instance, this year against Houston.

The situation was before the 2 minute warning. At the *very least* we want to get Houston to use all of their timeouts. And if possible, get the first down.

1st and 10 - Run the ball to Murray for 1-yard.

Houston calls their first timeout.

2nd and 9 - Delay of game penalty on Romo (lack of situational awareness and 'less is more with Romo' as we had a delay of game COMING OFF A TIMEOUT).

2nd and 14 - Screen pass to Dwayne Harris for 8 yards. Now it's 3rd and 6. Had we *not* had the delay of game, it would have been 3rd and 1.

Houston calls timeout.

3rd and 6 - When the idea is 'get the first down if you can, but make sure to make Houston use all of their timeouts' which means:

A. Make sure if you throw the ball, it is a safe and complete-able pss.

B. If nobody is there, eat the ball and take the sack because we want Houston to use their last timeout.

Instead, Romo doesn't seem Dez open and throws the ball away.

Bad situational awareness. The delay of game penalty really hurt us on that drive and not eating the ball and taking the sack on 3rd and 6 was just a lack of awareness about the situation.

You should ask Tony Dungy and Jimmy Johnson, both of whom agree with me that Romo has a lack of understanding situational football. And it's funny how you forget the multiple game clinching losses that have come off Romo interceptions and fumbles. Or like the Philly game on Sunday night where he held onto the ball for 7-8 seconds, got sacked from behind and Philly then went up 24-21. I guess that is 'good situational awareness.'




YR

 

[burmafrd]

love how the Romo haters cherry pick stats and very specific game situations then claim they know what they are talking about

 

[Yakuza Rich]

You're saying the sample size of 1 year is faulty and yet you keep going back to the 1 year of 2013 using the Packers and Chiefs game as an example?

How far do you want me to go back?

Like the 2009 Packers game when we threw and threw and threw the ball to the point where Dom Capers said he only kept blitzing because he didn't have to fear the blitz.

How about these games:

2007 vs. Buffalo Bills (71.4% passes and 5 INT's)

2007 vs. Philadelphia (73.7% passes and 22.2 QB Rating)

2008 vs. Washington (82.6% passes and a 24-26 loss to an inferior Washington team)

2008 vs. Baltimore (76.6% passes and a 66.2 QB Rating)

2009 vs. Green Bay (78% passes in a 7-17 loss with a 78 QB Rating)

2009 vs. Denver (62.6% passes and a 68 QB rating)

2010 vs. Washington (69.1% passes in a 7-13 loss with a 89.1 QB rating)

2010 vs. Chicago (72.8% passes in a 20-27 loss with a 78.4 QB Rating)

2010 vs. Tennessee (68.7% passes in a 27-34 loss with 3 INT's)

2011 vs. Detroit (64.6% passes in a 34-30 loss (with a 24-point lead) and 3 INT's).

2011 vs. Arizona (70% passes in a 13-19 loss)

2011 vs. Miami (60.7% passes in a 20-19 win with a 78.8 QB Rating)

2011 vs. Philadelphia (79.9% passes and a 66.7 QB Rating)

2012 vs. Chicago (78.2% passes and a 60.1 QB Rating)

2012 vs. NYG (80.5% passes, 4 INT's in a 24-29 loss and a 58.3 QB Rating)

2012 vs. Cincinnati (65.2% passes in a 20-19 win and a 74.6 QB Rating)

2013 vs. Philly (79.1% passes in a 17-3 victory and a 69.2 QB Rating)

2013 vs. NYG (70% passes in a 49-36 victory (had a 17-point lead at one point) and an 80 QB Rating).

Hypocrite much?

Nope, just telling the obvious that everybody should know. I mean, I would think that ANY Cowboys fan would know that this team has neglected the run a lot over the years. I just provided *some* examples that stood out.

Somehow that flies over lapdogs like yourself.

Less is more with Romo.

Deal with it.



YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

love how the Romo haters cherry pick stats and very specific game situations then claim they know what they are talking about

I love how saying 'less is more with Romo' makes you a 'Romo hater.' I think it is funny that people can actually take that as some sort of insult.

I love how one 'everything Romo does is great' fan tried to infer that Romo is at his physical peak this year.

I love how the 'everything Romo does is great' beg for an example and when you give them an example...they claim that you're 'cherry picking stats and very specific game situations' because that example really cuts at them and they know they are wrong.

Less is more with Romo.




YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Thanks. You didn't disappoint. Ever thought of deejaying a classic rock station?

I don't know what it's like to not be funny.

So, I don't get the punchline to your post.




YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Find a QB that does not have a worse record when he throws more than 35 passes a game then when he throws less.

YR refuses to admit the obvious.

I've stated time and time again, it's not about a worse record. I am talking about Romo and his efficiency.

I've already stated the obvious.

You just can't read which makes me question your IQ when Romo is involved in a conversation because you're so blinded by the hatred of anybody not saying absolutely glowing remarks about Romo at all occasions that you would rather just re-write the argument for yourself so in your mind you can think you're right about an argument that I'm not even having.

Good luck with that.




YR