sonnyboy;1485940 said:
This maybe the best post I've yet read on this board.
Especially since it DESTROYS the myth of Romo's poor final stretch.
Every time I hear a talking head or worse yet, uninformed radio sports show caller propogate this myth,.......my head explodes.
It also doesn't take into account that he fumbled like 6 or 7 times.
If you want to go ahead and say the last 6 games of 2006 (including the Seattle game), the defense wasn't all to blame.
In the Giants game, you posted a mediocre 23 points and the defense came up relatively strong there (20 points). Romo didn't do well against a poor secondary (no TDs, 2 INTs and a 58.1 rating).
In the New Orleans game, neither side of the ball did well for the Boys, so to blame the defense completely is ******** (they were playing the #1 offense in the league after all). Romo didn't do so well against a very poor secondary (58.8 rating with a 48.8 completion percentage and 1 TD and 2 INTs).
In the ATL game, you did well because, again, a mismatched team. I don't know how much stock I'd put into burning the vastly overmatched DeAngelo Hall over and over again.
Against Philly, the only team that had a decent secondary in this stretch, he posted one TD and 2 INTs for a horrid 45.5 rating. He absolutely got abused by the only halfway decent defense.
Against Detriot, he again did well against a vastly overmatched Detriot defense. 111 rating and over 300 yards. Yay, he was able to burn one of the worst defenses in the league.
Then, though I disagree with the game plan, he did mediocre against a horribly depleted Seattle Secondary. That Terry Glenn fumble wouldn't have happened if that was even a remotely accurate pass. He should have utterly destroyed the Seahawks but he didn't.
So as you can see, he had great games which brings up his average but he was horrid on a couple of those games too. Which is to say, he struggled.
