DMN: Roger Staubach: Cowboys are 'lucky' to have a 'championship' QB like Tony Romo

[TwoDeep3]

Romo has faults like every player.

Too bad there are some who have an aversion about discussing them.

 

[DallasCowpoke]

...If only Romo had an O-line
....If only Romo had a defense that creates turnovers
....If only Romo had a running game.

Damn, with all that Tim Tebow would look like a competent QB. Suit me up.

No team will have All Stars at every position.

LOL Wait, didn't you hear? Tony has some of the greatest stats ever generated by a player who can't do it all by himself.

Wait....what!!??

 

[DallasCowpoke]

I was once a Romo apologist.

Up until Jan 2012 I thought he was a top 5 QB.

I thought Eli Manning couldn't carry Romo's jock.I thought Eli had gotten lucky in 2007.

I so badly wanted Romo to shove it down Eli's throat on that last game of the 2011 season.I wanted Romo to stick it to Gary Myers and the rest of the New York media who had written all week leading into the game that Romo was nothing but empty stats.

Then Romo took the field that night at Giants Stadium with that petrified look.

Then it was the Dez overthrow of a sure TD on the 3rd down.

Then it was the beyond the line of scrimmage penalty on a play were Romo had nothing but daylight in front him.Didn't he know this?Didn't he know not to attempt a pass at that point?

Then I watched Eli Manning show us all what a big time QB looks like under pressure situations.

That's when I knew that Tony Romo didn't have what it takes, and I was foolish to think that Romo was in Eli's league.

 

[dooomsday]

This is a disgraceful comment and something that has become too commonplace on this site. NEVER have I seen a fanbase belittle its legends in order to protect a player who has won NOTHING. Seriously, shame on you for posting this type of crap.

Have you read the posts by CowboyRoy? He was counting up bye weeks as play off victories. LOL! if you have to stretch the truth, its probably not on your side.

Didnt Staubach play the same position for the same team? This is like asking Leila Ali who here favorite boxer is.

 

[Rockport]

we still win 3 superbowls in 4 years with romo instead of aikman in the 90s . Maybe even more . With that great OL and running game and dominant defense . We'd be scary .

Not sure I agree with more, but I totally agree that Romo would've won 3 as Aikman did.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Not sure I agree with more, but I totally agree that Romo would've won 3 as Aikman did.

Wow...

As lucky as we are to have Tony, he's no Aikman.

 

[DallasCowpoke]

Well, I'm positive Roger said more than just that he was rooting for Quincy. He said some good things about his talent, too. Problem is, that was a decade or more ago now and I guess a lot of that isn't up anymore.

Don't despair CL. I do remember Staubach and others lauding over QC. Does that make them less knowledgeable, or you and I for that mater?

No. It simply makes them tactfull when in front of the media, who don't care to appear like pompous jerks. Hellbent on upstaging the current powers-that-be.

Shame it's such a foreign concept to so many here.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

I think everybody here was in Romo's corner when he first became QB. We all had high hopes. There is only one person that can change anyone's opinion on Romo and that is Tony himself. If he wants to be a great QB then he has to go out and be one. And that means winning playoff games.

 

[Zordon]

I think everybody here was in Romo's corner when he first became QB. We all had high hopes. There is only one person that can change anyone's opinion on Romo and that is Tony himself. If he wants to be a great QB then he has to go out and be one. And that means winning playoff games.

period. can we close the thread now? or do we have to go for 20 pages about how it's the oline's fault...jason's fault...t.o.'s fault...the popcorn man's fault...the parking lot attendant's fault....Shy's unborn child's fault...etc...etc.

 

[Rockport]

Wow...

As lucky as we are to have Tony, he's no Aikman.

Romo's not as accurate as Aikman was in short to intermediate routes, but he's not far off. Romo throws the deep ball better than Aikman ever did. Aikman became a leader of the team faster than Romo has, but Romo's definitely stepped up the last few and is now the leader of the team. He's earned that by playing with a punctured lung and racked ribs and constantly getting hit yet he keeps on playing. Romo's no Aikman, but Aikman's no Romo either. Sure, Romo hasn't been on a Super Bowl team but he hasn't had the players that Aikman had either. Not even close.

 

[Hostile]

Romo has faults like every player.

Too bad there are some who have an aversion about discussing them.

From my point of view the Romo threads get discussed plenty. Where's all this aversion?

 

[popp1234]

I respect Roger's opinion with regard to Tony Romo, and God I wish they were true. In my heart (the fan) I want him to be correct, but in my mind (the realist) I know he is not, or should I say Romo has shown me he is not.. That's why it eats me up inside. What I thought he was, he is not, ever since I chose to assess him from an objective POV. So sad. Romo is Romo...if someone shows you who they are......BELIEVE THEM!

 

[ilovejerry]

Get him a functional offensive line, a defense that can contain the read-option and a coach that doesn't blunder away close games and, yeah, he can win a championship.

I couldn't agree more

 

[TwoDeep3]

From my point of view the Romo threads get discussed plenty. Where's all this aversion?

Yes, from your point of view.

However, what you see are people making fun of those who wish to discuss his ability to be deer in the headlights at times, and his accuracy problems occasionally.

I think he is a terrific player, but I tire of the excuses made for him.

Just like the Jets game where you hung around half the night arguing his last pick that was right before the Jets took the lead for good was not why Dallas lost.

 

[Hostile]

Yes, from your point of view.

However, what you see are people making fun of those who wish to discuss his ability to be deer in the headlights at times, and his accuracy problems occasionally.

I think he is a terrific player, but I tire of the excuses made for him.

Just like the Jets game where you hung around half the night arguing his last pick that was right before the Jets took the lead for good was not why Dallas lost.

Right, a thread this size would indicate there is no aversion to discuss.

What you really object to, and can't stand, is those who have an aversion to agreeing with your point of view.

What can I tell you? Them's the breaks kid.

 

[CoCo]

There are some topics where people have heard it all and formed their opinion - pro or con. This is one of them. Pretty rare that either side will convince the other. Better left agreeing to disagree, and respectfully. But few are willing to do so it seems.

I'm pro Romo but I get why others aren't. So be it.

Also love Roger and respect his take on many things Cowboy. Can't say that I feel the same about EVERY ex-player (Drew Pearson) so I get why some might be unmoved by Roger.

 

[visionary]

we still win 3 superbowls in 4 years with romo instead of aikman in the 90s . Maybe even more . With that great OL and running game and dominant defense . We'd be scary .

I like romo
He has proven he is a good QB with great talent

He is not yet a great QB

Aikman was a great QB

 

[jobberone]

I don't see Brady, Brees or Rodgers getting all that much more help then does Romo. I see us turning over the ball a lot more. I see us putting ourselves in bad down and distance situations a lot more. I basically see us playing unsound fundamental football more then some of these other teams in certain situations. What I see are players stepping up their games in situations to meet a challenge. What I don't see are players doing the same in Dallas. Is that because of the players or is that because of the QB?

I watched a replay of the Ice Bowl the other day and it struck me how Green Bay, on that last offensive drive, was able to move the ball when the whole second half, they had pretty much done nothing at all. On that last drive, they were laser sharp in their execution and just stepped up, especially Bart Starr. Is that players or is that a QB making players play above themselves?

Everybody sees it different.

Some of the Dallas players have stated they could not get any traction on that last drive. I don't remember why the conditions changed but that's the rumor. Not to take everything away from GB though because they got it done with they needed to but I don't think it was all due to some monumental drive and will to win.

 

[Idgit]

There are some topics where people have heard it all and formed their opinion - pro or con. This is one of them. Pretty rare that either side will convince the other. Better left agreeing to disagree, and respectfully. But few are willing to do so it seems.

I'm pro Romo but I get why others aren't. So be it.

Also love Roger and respect his take on many things Cowboy. Can't say that I feel the same about EVERY ex-player (Drew Pearson) so I get why some might be unmoved by Roger.

There's an offseason pattern that goes Jerry-Jason-Tony-wash-rinse-repeat. This is no different. We had Jerry (letting it slip that Callahan is the new play caller), Jason (days later, undermined by Jerry, a puppet, a bad play caller), and, now it's Tony's turn: whatever this weeks threads have been about. All three topics have little hope of ever getting resolved short of another Superbowl victory.

Personally, I don't have a lot of skin in the Romo debates. My opinion is that he's plenty good to win it all with, and worrying about anything else as far as he's concerned is silly. I don't care if he's 'elite,' or even 'great.' When we actually do fix the secondary and protection problems, and we're still losing close games to good teams, I'm happy to reconsider.

Of course, at that point, we'll possibly have won another championship, and the only thing we'll have to complain about will be each other. Won't that be nice?

 

[TwoDeep3]

Right, a thread this size would indicate there is no aversion to discuss.

What you really object to, and can't stand, is those who have an aversion to agreeing with your point of view.

What can I tell you? Them's the breaks kid.

You go out of your way to rewrite history, or to ignore it.

Consistency is what you do best.