News: Can Tony Romo Ever Get The Respect His Play Demands?

[KJJ]

And it never occurred to you that THIS may be the product of an inept Dallas DEFENSE? Check out the QB ratings of the opponent QBs in those losing playoff efforts:

2014 - Aaron Rodgers - GB - 125.4 - L
2014 - Matthew Stafford - DET - 87.7 - W
2009 - Brett Favre - GB - 134.4 - L
2009 - Donovan McNabb - PHI - 68.5 - W
2007 - Eli Manning - NYG - 132.4 - L
2006 - Matt Hasselbeck - SEA - 66.9 - L

The fumbled FG snap game against Seattle was about the only loss where the Dallas defense DIDN'T do their best (worst) to aid and abet the opposing QB into the halls of Canton.

Romo's turnovers didn't help the defense it put the D back on the field 3 times vs Minn. The defense didn't play well but neither did Romo in 2 of his 4 playoff losses. The loss to the Packers was on the defense poor tackling and little to no pressure on Rodgers. He took 28 sacks during the regular season and the Cowboys defense only got to him twice with him playing on one leg.

 

[SuspectCorner]

You're trying to make this about me and anymore attempts and I'll be done with you.

I welcome that day. Please, make it happen.

 

[KJJ]

I welcome that day. Please, make it happen.

Just made it happen.

 

[SuspectCorner]

Just made it happen.

Oh, goody. What an impact it will have on my life - I'm sure I will begin to notice SOMETIME in the distant future. Or not.

 

[Idgit]

W/L records are attached to the QB position and that's the measuring stick they're judged by.

This is untrue, and it's why you're stuck on the wrong side of this debate. You can't attach something to one position that is significantly dependent on the production of the team the majority of the time when the QB isn't even on the field. It doesn't matter that the casual fan may be naive enough to make this mistake. The posters here aren't, and any argument based on that sort of layman's misunderstanding of how football gets played just isn't going to fly here.

 

[Clove]

The reason Romo hasn't gotten the credit he deserves or whatever the original topic question is because Romo has split personalities. You have regular season, spin out of sack, avoid a rush, accurate entertaining Romo. That Romo, has hypnotized the majority of Cowboy fans, and some media personalities, and even me for his first few years. And then you have playoff/elimination game/ pressure game "Romo".. These are two different people. You see, playoff/elimination/pressure game Romo decides to gamble his season away with a high-risk, low-percentage throw to Dez to eliminate the Cowboys from the playoffs, once again.

This is the reason that Romo will hardly be remembered outside of Cowboys nation. A super star understands the moment. He understands exactly what needs to be done, and just somehow gets it done. I feel bad for the fans who really are emotionally invested in this type of QB because there's usually no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Just ask Jim Kelly fans, I hardly remember that guy.

I see all of these stats all over this thread and it's funny. All the stats you can possibly jot down will not help a guy who isn't built for championships. He just doesn't have it. You either have it or you don't. You can talk about his defenses throughout his career, but I've proven that teams with worse defenses have won Super Bowls. In the past they talked about and pointed to his offensive line, yeah, but I'm pretty sure he played with the "wall of China" and still couldn't get it done.

He's had so many chances with different leading receivers, different defenses, different offensive lines, different coaches, the list of excuses for Romo are 50 miles long. Posters have wasted a lot of time over the years debating with me over Romo, and they have never been right. I understand what it takes for a QB to win. It takes b**** of stone to win a championship. We probably could get a championship out of Romo if he plays great football during the regular season, as he mostly does, then get out of the way in the playoffs and allow the running game to carry us to victories, or if we have a defense, let that win us games.

Because quite honestly, you have to have ice-water in your veins and an unmatched willingness not to lose if you're trying to QB your team to wins in the playoffs. QBs have to go through multiple playoff games in order to win the Super Bowl, and down the stretch, you have to go against the best of the best, the best coached, the biggest crowds, biggest TV audiences and none of that can bother you.

It took me 3 years into Romo's career to recognize that he didn't have the things you can't find in stats, to win. Winning a championship is something you have within. I don't know if anyone has ever played sports and was a championship winner, but it takes something special to carve the nerves, the jitters, to fight through the emotions and decision-making plays you will need to win. Aikman was a BOSS in playoff and Super Bowl games. Whether taking over the games, or just not losing the game for the team.

In closing, I do believe Romo can possibly win a Super Bowl (ala Brad Johnson/etc) if in playoff/elimination/pressure games, he gets out of the way, and allows the running game and or defense to win the game. All he has to do is drive the bus and try not to run it off the road. That's our only hope. And IMO, even if he drives the bus and wins a super bowl, I won't care, I will like him and give him credit because I won't care HOW he got one, I just care about getting one.

 

[Primetime42]

He's not going to be injured holding a snap for a FG attempt and because he had been doing it and doing it well there was no point making a change during the season. That's an important job getting a snap down and because he was the backup when the season started I doubt the team had anyone else prepared enough who they felt as comfortable with. Can't recall anyone having an issue with Romo holding for kicks once he became the starter it only became an issue after he bobbled that snap in Seattle.

It wasn't a problem for that long GW kick against the Giants at the Meadowlands a few weeks prior. I don't blame Bill for not making a switch. He'd have had to sign someone else because McBriar couldn't do it at that point and Bledsoe damn sure wasn't going to.

 

[Idgit]

...I see all of these stats all over this thread and it's funny. All the stats you can possibly jot down will not help a guy who isn't built for championships. He just doesn't have it. You either have it or you don't. You can talk about his defenses throughout his career, but I've proven that teams with worse defenses have won Super Bowls. In the past they talked about and pointed to his offensive line, yeah, but I'm pretty sure he played with the "wall of China" and still couldn't get it done....

I know 'lots of people are different' and all that, but I don't think I'll ever get past the unwillingness on the part of some to just accept that some problems are complex enough that they require measurements, and that measurements are a good thing and not something that needs to be feared. Yes, you need to measure the right things. Yes, you need to measure them correctly. Yes, you need to understand that there are some factors that are interrelated enough that they defy attempts to isolate and measure them. It doesn't meant that measurements are inherently bad, and it most definitely doesn't mean that people who measure and compare aren't capable of recognizing the factors outside of a statistical analysis that need to be taken into consideration. Quite the opposite, they probably have a much better sense of what those issues are *because* they know well what can be measured and compared fairly effectively.

In any event, QB effectiveness is not a black box at this point. Statisticians have a good sense of what kind of QB play wins games, and the data is predictive. This is not really a debate, it's one side of an argument having the right answers because they understand the math, and the other one not wanting to accept that fact because they have a vested emotional interest in the math being wrong in Tony Romo's special case.

 

[DandyDon1722]

I waited to see what kind of response you would have if any before crossing you out because we've never had any real issues in the past and you've never been one to wage a personal attack at least not against me. However steering completely away from this topic and alerting me to a post you submitted in another thread talking about where I live, the car I drive and my financial status that I've never discussed on this board made it appear you were taking a slap and trying to stir something up. It's not like I haven't been attacked in this thread so anytime I see what appears to be a flame tossed I'm quick to put it out so this thread stays running smoothly. I have to deal with inflammatory comments, insults and personal attacks practically on a daily basis simply because a few fragile, weak minded posters don't agree with my opinions. Every view I have gets the screws grinding inside the heads of a few causing them to meltdown making themselves look foolish.

In the past I use to take a few jabs back but things would get out of hand causing the mods to have to step in. I would get so under the skin of a few that threads would turn into a free for all with others joining in playing monkey see monkey do. I've been given no choice by the rules that are in place to block these malcontents who are just looking to start some trouble. Crossing out the shrunken heads makes my life easier here and the mods job a lot easier. I get attacked for everything from the butt hurt patrol that I'm sure still follows me around with wounds that are still festering from discussions they probably still lose sleep over. Go through this thread and see what I've had to deal with just from giving honest football opinions. When you post online you're going to run into some drips who have a 3 ring circus going on inside their head.

You have to understand It's hard to tell where someone is coming from with all the shots that are fired my way. If someone is going to argue with me they better be wearing their big pants and not a diaper because I don't have time for cry babies. I've learned from the past that you have to move on from those who are bitter and have hate on their agenda because it leads to getting benched. Seeing that you responded back in a sensible mature way which never happens here we're still good. I have to send a message to those who just want to come around to antagonize, hate and cry like spurned women that I'm not wasting my time with them. Anyone who gets that wound up over someone's FOOTBALL views should seriously consider therapy.

Okay - thank you for the explanation. I get it.

I apologize, but I would ask that you don't take me off your list. I enjoy your posts and I hope you do mine (except for the last one).

 

[KJJ]

This is untrue, and it's why you're stuck on the wrong side of this debate. You can't attach something to one position that is significantly dependent on the production of the team the majority of the time when the QB isn't even on the field. It doesn't matter that the casual fan may be naive enough to make this mistake. The posters here aren't, and any argument based on that sort of layman's misunderstanding of how football gets played just isn't going to fly here.

No, it's not untrue you just don't agree. I can post link after link of QB's W/L records because W/L records are attached to their position. Naturally it's not going to fly here because this is a FAN board. You and several others always think I'm stuck on the wrong side of every debate. lol A W/L record is attached to QB's and head coaches. The head coach never throws a pass or makes a tackle but they have a W/L record attached to their position and are going to be judged by it. The success of an NFL team is significantly impacted by the play of the QB which is why more QB's have won SB MVP's and league MVP's. A QB impacts the way his offense plays and can have an affect on his defense if they play poorly. A QB's turnovers put their D back on the field and sometimes forces them to defend a short field. If a QB isn't performing well it can lead to some short series which leaves their defense on the field all day. An ineffective QB who's not leading his offense to points puts pressure on their defense to not give up points.

A QB's play can affect their entire team. In baseball pitchers have W/L records attached to them because they have a great influence on the outcome of games despite the fact most don't hit or knock in any runs. A W/L record doesn't mean QB's get all the credit for wins and all the blame for losses but the fact is they receive most of the gory for wins and most of the blame for losses. They talk about Joe Montana's W/L record but they never talk about Jerry Rice's W/L because the QB's are the only players given W/L records. We heard for years about Romo's 1-6 elimination game record prior to last season it wasn't just me everyone talked about it. If Romo had a 6-0 playoff record FANS wouldn't complain about him being given a W/L record. No player other than a QB is given W/L records. Here's a list of QB's W/L records. See if you can find a list of WR's, LB's, DB's or any position on the field other than QB's who have W/L records.

http://www.footballdb.com/stats/qb-records.html

 

[KJJ]

Okay - thank you for the explanation. I get it.

I apologize, but I would ask that you don't take me off your list. I enjoy your posts and I hope you do mine (except for the last one).

I'm not taking you off my list you handled the situation well and I appreciate the apology. I just thought maybe you saw all the crap that's been flying my way and decided to join in. I wish I could exchange barbs with these cry babies they leave me so much material but like I said the mods won't put up with it so I'm having to cross them out. Hate having to handle things this way but it's the only way to keep the peace.

 

[Idgit]

No, it's not untrue you just don't agree. I can post link after link of QB's W/L records because W/L records are attached to their position. Naturally it's not going to fly here because this is a FAN board. You and several others always think I'm stuck on the wrong side of every debate. lol A W/L record is attached to QB's and head coaches. The head coach never throws a pass or makes a tackle but they have a W/L record attached to their position and are going to be judged by it. The success of an NFL team is significantly impacted by the play of the QB which is why more QB's have won SB MVP's and league MVP's. A QB impacts the way his offense plays and can have an affect on his defense if they play poorly. A QB's turnovers put their D back on the field and sometimes forces them to defend a short field. If a QB isn't performing well it can lead to some short series which leaves their defense on the field all day. An ineffective QB who's not leading his offense to points puts pressure on their defense to not give up points.

A QB's play can affect their entire team. In baseball pitchers have W/L records attached to them because they have a great influence on the outcome of games despite the fact most don't hit or knock in any runs. A W/L record doesn't mean QB's get all the credit for wins and all the blame for losses but the fact is they receive most of the gory for wins and most of the blame for losses. They talk about Joe Montana's W/L record but they never talk about Jerry Rice's W/L because the QB's are the only players given W/L records. We heard for years about Romo's 1-6 elimination game record prior to last season it wasn't just me everyone talked about it. If Romo had a 6-0 playoff record FANS wouldn't complain about him being given a W/L record. No player other than a QB is given W/L records. Here's a list of QB's W/L records. See if you can find a list of WR's, LB's, DB's or any position on the field other than QB's who have W/L records.

http://www.footballdb.com/stats/qb-records.html

I don't agree because it's untrue. It doesn't matter how many links of QB W/L records you post, team wins simply aren't attached to the QB position. They aren't attached to any one position. It doesn't matter how much you might want to believe it, or how many fans make the same sorts of careless correlation assumptions, it doesn't make it any more the case. And it's not because it's a FAN board here (I never know what that means anyway, but it's not) because we're talking about QB play in general and not just about Tony Romo here.

Nobody here would dream of saying the success of an NFL team isn't significantly impacted by the play of the QB. He's the most important player on the field, when he's on the field. Which is less than half the time.

 

[zack]

I Just love the posts where someone says, I know Romo will never win, doesn't have it, etc. How in the hell do you know? You don't. Come up with something better. It's one thing if you have NFL experience. We don't. So how the hell do you know if someone doesn't have it in them to win.

So people actually think that Trent Dilfer had it before he won? Really???

 

[KJJ]

I don't agree because it's untrue. It doesn't matter how many links of QB W/L records you post, team wins simply aren't attached to the QB position. They aren't attached to any one position. It doesn't matter how much you might want to believe it, or how many fans make the same sorts of careless correlation assumptions, it doesn't make it any more the case. And it's not because it's a FAN board here (I never know what that means anyway, but it's not) because we're talking about QB play in general and not just about Tony Romo here.

Nobody here would dream of saying the success of an NFL team isn't significantly impacted by the play of the QB. He's the most important player on the field, when he's on the field. Which is less than half the time.

If what I'm saying is untrue there wouldn't be so many links with the W/L record of QB's. The fact there are so many links proves that W/L records are attached to QB's. Here's a quote from Wikipedia that supports everything I've been saying "In the National Football League the quarterback is the only position player to be credited with a record of wins and losses as a starter." GAME-SET-MATCH!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_NFL_quarterbacks_win–loss_records

 

[Idgit]

If what I'm saying is untrue there wouldn't be so many links with the W/L record of QB's. The fact there are so many links proves that W/L records are attached to QB's. Here's a quote from Wikipedia that supports everything I've been saying "In the National Football League the quarterback is the only position player to be credited with a record of wins and losses as a starter." GAME-SET-MATCH!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_NFL_quarterbacks_win–loss_records

The fact that people do it doesn't make it true, and my response to the rest of your post is the exact same response I had to the last one. Game, set, match my foot. It's still a record of TEAM wins.

 

[KJJ]

The fact that people do it doesn't make it true, and my response to the rest of your post is the exact same response I had to the last one. Game, set, match my foot. It's still a record of TEAM wins.

You haven't provided one single link to back your opinion and that's what you've given an "opinion." I provided a fact and if you want to argue in the face of the quote and link I posted that backs everything I've been saying go ahead. LOL The NFL are the people you're referring to and they're the ones who credit QB's with wins and losses. It may not be right in your mind but I just conclusively proved that QB's have W/L records attached to them and whether it's right or not it's a fact.

 

[Idgit]

You haven't provided one single link to back your opinion and that's what you've given an "opinion." I provided a fact and if you want to argue in the face of the quote and link I posted that backs everything I've been saying go ahead. LOL The NFL are the people you're referring to and they're the ones who credit QB's with wins and losses. It may not be right in your mind but I just conclusively proved that QB's have W/L records attached to them and whether it's right or not it's a fact.

I don't need to provide a link to prove something that's self-evident. I wouldn't even try. And you didn't provide a fact. You provided a link to a site where they calculated the wins and losses of the teams that a QB played for in the games they played, and you're trying to infer from that that the teams won or lost because of the QB.

This necessary connection you think you're seeing because you're reading it on the internet isn't an actual actual connection. And it's no more a fact than it would be if I made a similar connection between long snappers and the teams they play for. Yes, QBs are important. Yes, they're the most important players generally on NFL teams. No, they aren't responsible for team wins and losses. No, counting teams' wins and losses in games they play in doesn't change that. Nor does it somehow make it fact.

 

[gmoney112]

Romo's turnovers didn't help the defense it put the D back on the field 3 times vs Minn. The defense didn't play well but neither did Romo in 2 of his 4 playoff losses. The loss to the Packers was on the defense poor tackling and little to no pressure on Rodgers. He took 28 sacks during the regular season and the Cowboys defense only got to him twice with him playing on one leg.

Anyone who wants to assign any blame on Romo in that Minny game, didnt watch the game. Period.

Also, two words. Team game.

On a final note, regarding your wiki link.. everything written on the internet is 100% fact. Bigfoot exists too, the internet told me.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I don't need to provide a link to prove something that's self-evident. I wouldn't even try. And you didn't provide a fact. You provided a link to a site where they calculated the wins and losses of the teams that a QB played for in the games they played, and you're trying to infer from that that the teams won or lost because of the QB.

This necessary connection you think you're seeing because you're reading it on the internet isn't an actual actual connection. And it's no more a fact than it would be if I made a similar connection between long snappers and the teams they play for. Yes, QBs are important. Yes, they're the most important players generally on NFL teams. No, they aren't responsible for team wins and losses. No, counting teams' wins and losses in games they play in doesn't change that. Nor does it somehow make it fact.

Additionally, it is not a "stat" recognized by the NFL, you won't see any mention of it on NFL.com or the official NFL record book. It has no official definition, i.e. how is a decision determined? By starting the game? Finishing the game? Pitching 6 innings? No one knows, because it's a phony stat that doesn't exist. Even if it did, it would be one of the most useless stats in sports, even more useless than baseball's decision. There is literally no limit to how poorly/well a QB could play and receive a win/loss. It's a phony stat for simpleton football fans.

 

[KJJ]

I don't need to provide a link to prove something that's self-evident. I wouldn't even try. And you didn't provide a fact. You provided a link to a site where they calculated the wins and losses of the teams that a QB played for in the games they played, and you're trying to infer from that that the teams won or lost because of the QB.

This necessary connection you think you're seeing because you're reading it on the internet isn't an actual actual connection. And it's no more a fact than it would be if I made a similar connection between long snappers and the teams they play for. Yes, QBs are important. Yes, they're the most important players generally on NFL teams. No, they aren't responsible for team wins and losses. No, counting teams' wins and losses in games they play in doesn't change that. Nor does it somehow make it fact.

I provided nothing but facts while you provided nothing but opinions. You claimed what I posted was untrue and wrong and you were wrong. I got it right and you got it wrong and try as you might there's no way around it.