Did Terrell Owens stunt Romo's growth?

[rubin86]

I was listening to the Irvin show this AM and this question came to me.

I have to say yes, primarily because of TO's malcontent attitude and need to have his ego stroked. If a player (especially a quarterback) has to go out of his way to ensure that another player is not feeling hurt or out of place then it is definitely stunting his own growth.

I think most of us can agree that this trade happened to benefit Romo. He's a young quarterback who has shown us flashes of greatness but when December rolls around he doesn't have the ability to finish. Maybe its the over-consuming annoyance that is TO.

Either way, I believe that this trade will allow Romo to grow and became the real quarterback he should have been last year.

Check out my article on this subject: http://mvn.com/thecowboyroundup/2009/03/terrell-owens-stunted-romos-growth.html

 

[Frozen700]

could have

or it made him spoiled

i agree that he felt the need to get the ball to TO..and most play calls were for TO....so this season, will make or break him

 

[wileedog]

As much as I was for this move, it wasn't TO that made Tony make some of the decisions he made this season.

I think the coaching and lack of discipline/accountability had much more to do with it. As did the injuries and Oline play too.

On the bright side, Tony should never have trouble dealing with a WR again - they should all be a walk in the park after this

 

[EPL0c0]

Yeah, Terrell's responsible for Romo's "If losing a game is the worst thing that happens to me" attitude because we all know how much Terrell Owens doesn't mind losing...

At the end of the day every man answers for himself and if Tony Romo's growth was "stunted" it was Tony Romo's fault.

 

[Yeagermeister]

It's the lack of coaching once Parcells left. That's why IMO we need a coach like Holmgren or Shanahan.

 

[Ren]

It's the lack of coaching once Parcells left. That's why IMO we need a coach like Holmgren or Shanahan.

there's no one around holding him accountable for his mistakes

 

[McCordsville Cowboy]

TO helped make Romo....

Romo stunted his own growth by wearing his hat backwards.

 

[ddh33]

I think Inman Roshi said it best when he mentioned something about TO being a Sum Zero player.

Look, it helped Romo to have a really talented big play guy on the outside.

But it also hindered Romo to have to placate this guy, constantly look for him instead of other options, worry about him running the right routes, and force the ball to him just because you don't know if he'll be with you if you don't.

The way I see it, nothing has been seriously lost on the field. And Romo can finally get back to being a QB instead of a baby-sitter.

 

[rubin86]

I think Inman Roshi said it best when he mentioned something about TO being a Sum Zero player.

Look, it helped Romo to have a really talented big play guy on the outside.

But it also hindered Romo to have to placate this guy, constantly look for him instead of other options, worry about him running the right routes, and force the ball to him just because you don't know if he'll be with you if you don't.

The way I see it, nothing has been seriously lost on the field. And Romo can finally get back to being a QB instead of a baby-sitter.

you couldn't have said it any better. I mean for Romo to constantly look over his shoulder to make sure that Owens had been pleased is totally absurd. I mean, how would Owens feel if this was the other way around?

 

[BruceWayne]

I for one hope #9 has a hell of a season next year but IF he doesn't who will take the blame. Because the #1 fall guy is gone.

 

[Ren]

TO helped make Romo....

Romo stunted his own growth by wearing his hat backwards.

been listening to the gay dude on the Michael Irvin show? :laugh1:

 

[Stash]

I think Inman Roshi said it best when he mentioned something about TO being a Sum Zero player.

Look, it helped Romo to have a really talented big play guy on the outside.

But it also hindered Romo to have to placate this guy, constantly look for him instead of other options, worry about him running the right routes, and force the ball to him just because you don't know if he'll be with you if you don't.

The way I see it, nothing has been seriously lost on the field. And Romo can finally get back to being a QB instead of a baby-sitter.

I can see this line of thinking, but at this point, I don't subscribe to it.

Personally, I think having a receiver as talented as Owens made Romo's job easier, not harder.

Having a player that opposing defenses must account for and often shift towards makes a Qb's reads mucch easier.

Just ask Eli Manning how much more difficult his life got when he lost Burress and then had to read the entire field.

Did his chirping and campaigning for the ball effect Romo? Only if Romo allowed it to.

If Owens was saying or doing things that Romo didn't like or appreciate, it was up to him to stand up and tell him about it. That's what a teammate, quarterback, and leader does.

I'll be very interested to see the effect - good or bad - that not having Owens will be for Romo.

 

[Cochese]

I can see this line of thinking, but at this point, I don't subscribe to it.

Personally, I think having a receiver as talented as Owens made Romo's job easier, not harder.

Having a player that opposing defenses must account for and often shift towards makes a Qb's reads mucch easier.

Just ask Eli Manning how much more difficult his life got when he lost Burress and then had to read the entire field.

Did his chirping and campaigning for the ball effect Romo? Only if Romo allowed it to.

If Owens was saying or doing things that Romo didn't like or appreciate, it was up to him to stand up and tell him about it. That's what a teammate, quarterback, and leader does.

I'll be very interested to see the effect - good or bad - that not having Owens will be for Romo.

Just ask Eli how much easier his life got when his psychopathic egoist tight end got hurt and couldnt harass him about getting the football more.

 

[Stash]

Just ask Eli how much easier his life got when his psychopathic egoist tight end got hurt and couldnt harass him about getting the football more.

I thought Owens played receiver...

 

[RoadRunner]

I was listening to the Irvin show this AM and this question came to me.

I have to say yes, primarily because of TO's malcontent attitude and need to have his ego stroked. If a player (especially a quarterback) has to go out of his way to ensure that another player is not feeling hurt or out of place then it is definitely stunting his own growth.

I think most of us can agree that this trade happened to benefit Romo. He's a young quarterback who has shown us flashes of greatness but when December rolls around he doesn't have the ability to finish. Maybe its the over-consuming annoyance that is TO.

Either way, I believe that this trade will allow Romo to grow and became the real quarterback he should have been last year.

Check out my article on this subject: http://mvn.com/thecowboyroundup/2009/03/terrell-owens-stunted-romos-growth.html

If your reasoning is true then Romo has no business being in the NFL as it paints the picture of him not having the psychological fortitude to handle things.

 

[RoadRunner]

Just ask Eli how much easier his life got when his psychopathic egoist tight end got hurt and couldnt harass him about getting the football more.

Just ask Eli how much different it was in the playoffs without Plaxico.

 

[ddh33]

I know the Eli argument is popular right now, but like the above poster mentioned, things got easier for Eli when Shockey and Tiki left.

As far as last year is concerned, not only did the Giants lose Burress, they also had a beat up Brandon Jacobs, and two lines that got a little nicked up. Burress was the bigger story so people ignored the other issues. But they weren't getting nearly as much pressure on QBs, and their OL wasn't quite as dominant quite as often either.

I just think of the Titans and Dolphins and Ravens though. Derrick Mason is a good player. Every other receiver on those teams is "just a guy". They aren't that special, and they didn't need to be. They just got open and caught the football.

 

[Stash]

I know the Eli argument is popular right now, but like the above poster mentioned, things got easier for Eli when Shockey and Tiki left.

As far as last year is concerned, not only did the Giants lose Burress, they also had a beat up Brandon Jacobs, and two lines that got a little nicked up. Burress was the bigger story so people ignored the other issues. But they weren't getting nearly as much pressure on QBs, and their OL wasn't quite as dominant quite as often either.

I just think of the Titans and Dolphins and Ravens though. Derrick Mason is a good player. Every other receiver on those teams is "just a guy". They aren't that special, and they didn't need to be. They just got open and caught the football.

So a top 5 defense is a prerequisite then? Like all of those teams had.

That makes it a bit easier to not have great receivers.

The fact is that the Giants' passing attack tanked once Burress was gone, and teams played them accordingly.

I'm not suggesting he was the sole reason, but his loss was definitely felt.

 

[Doomsday101]

I think don't think Owens has stunted the growth of Romo. I think Romo at times locked on TO to try and make plays or even to appease TO after getting an earful on the sidelines. I think there are positives and negatives Romo can learn from this experience with TO.

 

[wileedog]

Just ask Eli Manning how much more difficult his life got when he lost Burress and then he couldn't chuck the ball in the air in his general vicinity and let Buress go get it.

Fixed it for you.

BTW I think both sides are right, but in the end I think the ability to relax and play football without babysitting Owens will outweigh the negatives. Romo is much better at reading the field than Eli IMO, and we have better weapons then he did once Buress went down.