Just curious.
To the Romo lovers, did it change your opinion of him as a top-tier QB?
To the Romo critics: Did it make you more convinced he's an up and down QB, i.e. inconsistent or even overrated when facing cupcakes?
To those inbetween: Did the game sway you one way or ther other?
nope, par for the course. Another big game on prime time television that he came up small.
Story of his life.
nope, par for the course. Another big game on prime time television that he came up small.
Story of his life.
No. Romo was 10 of 24 passing, but with two drops by Witten, two by Terrance Williams, and one by Beasley. Make those completions, and Romo was 15 of 24 despite heavy pressure.
After Sunday night, Romo is the least of my concerns.
Out of all qualifying quarterbacks with enough attempts to qualify, only Alex Smith has protected the ball better. And while Romo has become a dink and dunker, he still has a full yard per attempt more than Smith's check downs. Smith has 9 TDs and 4 INTs, Romo 21 and 6. The Chiefs are 9-0. Could we be 9-0 with (gulp) Alex Smith?
Alex Smith, while obviously isn't the passer Romo is, is a gamer.
Dude already has 265 yards rushing -- on pace for nearly 500. So while yes, Romo has averaged a yard more per attempt, Smith is gaining 1st downs for his team on the ground. While Smith isn't a running QB per say, it does mean he's more productive that just his passing stats indicate.
Good point about the running. And not really a slam on Smith. You'd just think we could do better with 21 and 6 from our guy. It's real, real, real hard to spin 21 and 6 in to a bad thing.
Good point about the running. And not really a slam on Smith. You'd just think we could do better with 21 and 6 from our guy. It's real, real, real hard to spin 21 and 6 in to a bad thing.
No
How many of these Romo threads will be posted?
With all due respect I do BELIEF that is what I said.....
21-6 is good any way you spin it. It's really par for the course with Tony Romo and his career -- for whatever reason even when everything is going right on paper (ie stats) for Tony, the team is seemingly not benefiting from it in the W-L column.
So strange.
Stats/facts are usually posted to anoint a player as great or the greatest. Too they can be listed to prove that a player is a stiff. In the case of Romo apologists, their stats usually are meant to say, to use the vernacular, "ain't he great?!"
The thing is, his stats do indicate a high level of proficiency as your or yours stats implie and I infer.
So, please, do not split hairs. The stats in Romo's case are meant to anoint, to engender superlatives and crown him as a great QB. Again, his individual stats do point to individual greatness. However, as the dastardly NFL measures things, the Super Bowl is the prize. The cheese at the end of the maze. El perfecto of cigars. The Cupie Doll in the dart game, etc.
Romo has not done that, i.e. another playoff win or a Super Bowl.. He has won ONE playoff game in his career.
So let's not pretend otherwise that the Romo camp stats are not . That is one stat (playoff wins) that, too, does not lie.
I admire your loyalty to Romo. You are a good fan of his and I am sure he appreciates it.