Great Quarterbacks

[CowboyMcCoy]

I ordered my authentic Romo jersey the day after Bledsoe got yanked from the Giants game.

Oh, and I'm a jerk too, but I'm not gonna apologize for it.

I will because I went a little overboard and made insults to people who I actually respect in order to make my point. I was more of a supporter of Romo than I was anti-Henson. Although, after watching him I will not deny it was almost equally perceived that Henson would hurt this team as much as I thought Romo would help it.

The guy looked down one receiver and after that he was like a deer in the headlights, I came up with names like one-look-Willie and Henskunk. I also made insults towards others and their opinions.

So I will apologize because I'm not above that.

 

[Angus]

Years ago when I first found fan forums (2002 when Emmitt broke the record) I was consistently in heated debates about why you need a great QB. The problem at that time was that our QBs were not great (Hutchinson had just replaced Carter), but they had some of the most ardent fans I have ever seen.

Ardent hell, in retrospect they were downright blind. I introduced to the forums my belief in Quarterback pedigree and the idea that you need a great Quarterback to go anywhere. The argument in response usually centered around Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson having won Super Bowls and were mediocre Quarterbacks. I continue to maintain they have rings because their Defenses carried their teams.

Pedigree has faults of course. Drew Henson is proof of that. You simply cannot gauge what a player will do with the chances they receive. He didn't do enough. Period. There will always be a faction who believe Parcells sabotaged him, but I will always maintain if you are good enough, no one can truly keep you down.

Which brings me to Tony Romo. He has a very quiet pedigree that none of us knew about. He broke all of the passing records at Eastern Illinois that were previously held by Sean Payton. Mike Shanahan is also an alum of Eastern Illinois and like Payton is considered an Offensive guru.

I don't think Romo has the biggest arm. I never have. He doesn't need it. He has guile, guts, and as quick a release as anyone in the NFL today. Maybe only Kurt Warner is as fast. Is it Dan Marino fast? No. But it is fast enough. He also has the one thing I truly love in a Quarterback, accuracy.

I still cannot believe there were people in 2002 and 2003 who were telling people that accuracy in a Quarterback is over rated. One guy was so insistent upon this theory that he actually said Troy Aikman was over rated and only great because of the pieces around him. I remain perplexed at this mouth breather theory.

Finally the final intangible needed for a Quarterback to be great seems to be present in ours. He is a leader. There were questions about this right up until a few weeks ago. Allegations he allowed a prima donna WR to overpower him, folds under pressure, and lacked focus. If anyone says that these things did not enter their minds they are either lying or completely unaware.

It can be said without raising eyebrows, Tony Romo is a great leader. Is he a rah rah guy like Drew Brees? No. Is he a fiery in your face guy like Phillip Rivers? No. Is he a machine like Peyton Manning? No. He's often compared to Brett Favre for his gunslinger tendencies. I think he's a lot more like Kurt Warner than he is Favre.

Humble guy, quick release, highly intelligent, and from a small school. They both went undrafted and then found their way to stardom simply by refusing to give up. I consider this comparison to be a high compliment to Tony Romo because I hold Kurt Warner in very high regard.

I think it is increasingly more impossible to win in the NFL without a top Quarterback at the helm. We saw the irrefutable evidence of this last year when Romo went down and came back too soon because the ship was sinking. Without him, we were as pedestrian as a jaywalker in heavy traffic.

This year, with him, we've been in every game except maybe one. He is playing at such a high level it is impossible not to recognize it if you have your eyes open at all. I have never understood the incredible level of scrutiny he has been under. I think part of it is that we were so bad for a while that we are afraid of how great someone really can be again.

I often hear people who are long time fans of this team say that in 1989 they could see the greatness in Aikman even as the team was losing. I agree with them, because I said the same things then. A lot of Cowboys fans did. It was not a unique phenomenon by any means. Some guys simply have it. Whatever it is.

Tony Romo has it. It needed to be cajoled and groomed out of him. Once he took the field in 2006 anyone who had their eyes open could see it. I think the doubts about him have been more frustrating to me than any other aspect of the doubts about this team. I think they have been outright unfair far more than they have been even handed.

If you look at the Quarterbacks still alive in these final 8 teams you will see one thing very much in common with all of them. They are either in the upper echelon of Quarterbacks in the NFL or they have the potential to be there very soon. If you look at the 12 Quarterbacks whose teams made the playoffs I think you can safely say that they are closer to being the top 12 starting Quarterbacks in the NFL than the bottom 12 starting Quarterbacks in the NFL.

That is a fact that I notice every year. A top Quarterback gives you a better chance to be in the running for Post Season glory than any other aspect of the game. You hear that Defense wins Championships, and to a degree that is pure fact. Not without a Quarterback who the team believes in, and not year after year. To be a consistent contender in the NFL you need a great Quarterback.

We are so blessed to have one.

Glad to have you aboard, Hostile. But I think your recollections about the apparent greatness of Aikman in his first years is off center. He was poor then, perhaps because Johnson brought in his college quarterback to compete with him. If he was thought to be destined for greatness then it was because of a draft snob reaction to his 'pedigree'.

As I remember you were a little late coming to an appreciation of Romo because he had no 'pedigree' that you knew about. He still has no pedigree. Neither does Warner. No draft snob appeal. Both were undrafted because the experts thought they were unworthy.

I also was expecting great things from Henson because of his history, but Romo's first preseason game, when he went for a touchdown despite Parcell's admonition, was enough for me to expect future excitement from him.

I usually agree with your posts and greatly appreciate your sharing your knowledge. I agree with this one, but I think you may be misremembering a few things.

 

[jobberone]

I can't speak for anyone else but there are reasons other than stats I would place Brees at the top of the list this year. That's looking at the total regular season only.

He's throwing the ball to places that require a great deal of accuracy and they aren't short passes either. He's just playing at a higher level then any other QB in the league. I would have given him the MVP over Manning this year and I think Manning is the best QB in the league looking over both careers. I still love Tony but he does not throw some of the passes Brees has completed with regularity. Romo has a quicker release and he's younger. He also protects the ball better than Brees and has more ability to extend a play. I wouldn't trade Tony straight up for Brees even though Brees is clearly the better QB looking at the regular season only.

 

[Cover 2]

Good post. I still remember thinking Henson was the answer and Romo would amount to nothing. I'm just happy we got our quarterback.

And Romo may have a faster release than Marino. In the Madden video game (I know Madden is looked down upon), Collinsworth is the color commentator in it and he mentions that they've gone back and timed a lot of the different quarterbacks' releases, and Romo's is the fastest.

 

[Hostile]

I was both anti-Henson and pro-Romo.

I just don't buy that at all. Your sig pics and threads from that time speak louder than denials do now. You admitted to stirring the pot and moving on. There's no need to try and re-invent your past to something it was not.

 

[Hostile]

Glad to have you aboard, Hostile. But I think your recollections about the apparent greatness of Aikman in his first years is off center. He was poor then, perhaps because Johnson brought in his college quarterback to compete with him. If he was thought to be destined for greatness then it was because of a draft snob reaction to his 'pedigree'.

As I remember you were a little late coming to an appreciation of Romo because he had no 'pedigree' that you knew about. He still has no pedigree. Neither does Warner. No draft snob appeal. Both were undrafted because the experts thought they were unworthy.

I also was expecting great things from Henson because of his history, but Romo's first preseason game, when he went for a touchdown despite Parcell's admonition, was enough for me to expect future excitement from him.

I usually agree with your posts and greatly appreciate your sharing your knowledge. I agree with this one, but I think you may be misremembering a few things.

I don't agree that Aikman was poor at all. The team around him was struggling but the guy had incredible skills. I remember a lot of people who were high on Aikman despite his first 2 years. I was in no way unique in Cowboys nation.

 

[NextGenBoys]

At this point in Tony Romo's career, I would contend that he is a "good" Quarterback and not a great one.

I think "good" Quarterbacks become "great" Quarterbacks based on their feats in the Post Season.

Tony Romo's most brilliant feats have been during the Regular Season.

However, ever since he started, he has clearly been working his way towards "great".

Fair assessment.

But what Romo does for this team IS great.

 

[Mexicanmarauder]

Years ago when I first found fan forums (2002 when Emmitt broke the record) I was consistently in heated debates about why you need a great QB. The problem at that time was that our QBs were not great (Hutchinson had just replaced Carter), but they had some of the most ardent fans I have ever seen...........................

I have believed this for a long time now. I don't claim to be an expert when it comes to football but I do consider myself to be a very knowledgeable fan of the game.

This is my take....

I think the QB position is the most important and overrated position in the game of football. I know some people will wonder what exactly that means. It means that while the QB is the most important, you don't need a great QB to win it all, you just don't.

Case and point, guys like Hostetler, Rypien, Dilfer, D. Williams, Phil Simms etc. Now, it's not that these guys are bad QB's, they just aren't great. They are avg to slightly above avg QB's that fit into the right system with the right players around them.

John Elway is the perfect example of my theory. He was a great QB 10 years before he ever won a SB, he just never had the right team around him. Every time he made the SB, he was just beaten by a better team, NOT a better QB.

Once Elway made the SB and won it, the irony was that he was no longer the best player on the field, it was clearly Terrell Davis. Even though Elway got the MVP, it should have been Davis twice. As a matter of fact, his stats were his worst when he WON the SB. They were bad as in he had a bad year, they just weren't as gaudy as they were in the past because he no longer had to throw the ball 40-50 times per game. Now he had a defense and running game to rely on.

This takes me to Romo. People are now saying that Romo has changed as a QB so much, that he has "matured"....LOL. I laugh when people say this because I do see some improvements to Romo, I just don't see a completely different player like they think they are seeing.

Granted Romo has improved in protecting the ball when scrambling. He said he worked with the RB coach and that he is not holding on to the ball with 2 hands. He said he also is trying to throw the ball away instead of throwing a TD every single time but he also said it's easier now because he is playing from ahead a lot these days.

"When you are up 14 as opposed to being down 14, it changes the way you play". He's 100% right, I mean you don't have to force everything when you are up, if you DON'T force the ball when down, you will lose the game.

Favre is another great example, he's got 30 TD's and only 7 INT's. I mean this is Favre we are talking about. This is the leader all time in INT thrown, now all of a sudden he's found out how to play the game again? I don't buy it, it's the TEAM. It's his running game and the fact he has a good o-line and defense.

So while you don't need a great QB, you do need a good one and guess what people, we have had a good one for about 3 years now. It's just that some people get caught up in the old argument "How many Super Bowls does he have though?" Which has no bearing on how good he is as an individual. I knew about 2 years ago that Romo was good enough to win a SB with, we just needed to get the right people around him. It seems as though Jerry Jones might have done that and this team is primed and ready to make a deep playoff run.

Romo was the least of my problems and he still is. This team will go as far as the defense and running game will take them and I like our chances.:lombardi:

 

[lurkercowboy]

I don't agree that Aikman was poor at all. The team around him was struggling but the guy had incredible skills. I remember a lot of people who were high on Aikman despite his first 2 years. I was in no way unique in Cowboys nation.

During the 1989 season, I looked hard for signs of greatness in Aikman and I honestly was not all that encouraged. It was not until the next season, specifically game three versus the Commanders, that I started feel really good about Aikman as being the future at QB.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I just don't buy that at all. Your sig pics and threads from that time speak louder than denials do now. You admitted to stirring the pot and moving on. There's no need to try and re-invent your past to something it was not.

Absurd. In your mind that may be the case. I don't buy what you're selling either. I guess it's sour grapes. There is no "re-inventing". Remember, Henson was the fans' golden boy. You're right in that no one really knew anything about Romo, other than a select few. I think it's just sour grapes that you weren't able to see the "pedigree". Call me out as you wish, but you're misconstruing it into something it's not. I never saw anything in Henson, you did. I did see something in Romo, you didn't. And that's the bottom line.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

The only person I remember that was on the Tony Romo Bandwagon from the beginning was Babe Laufenberg.

I wanted Tony Romo and Drew Henson cut and to draft a Quarterback in the 1st Round.

I know Drew Henson's biggest fan was one Mickey Spagnola.

Boy, him and Steve Dennis almost came to blows during a Pre-Season Pre-Game Show over Tony Romo vs Drew Henson.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Glad to have you aboard, Hostile. But I think your recollections about the apparent greatness of Aikman in his first years is off center. He was poor then, perhaps because Johnson brought in his college quarterback to compete with him. If he was thought to be destined for greatness then it was because of a draft snob reaction to his 'pedigree'.

As I remember you were a little late coming to an appreciation of Romo because he had no 'pedigree' that you knew about. He still has no pedigree. Neither does Warner. No draft snob appeal. Both were undrafted because the experts thought they were unworthy.

I also was expecting great things from Henson because of his history, but Romo's first preseason game, when he went for a touchdown despite Parcell's admonition, was enough for me to expect future excitement from him.

I usually agree with your posts and greatly appreciate your sharing your knowledge. I agree with this one, but I think you may be misremembering a few things.

Yeah, it's sort of a revisionist version of how he wants to remember it... saving face, so-to-speak. He beat the term "pedigree" into the ground and was no fan of Romo at all until it became apparent that he had some intangibles that weren't going to go unnoticed and that he, indeed, would succeed.

Romo has made believers out of many. So he shouldn't feel alone.

 

[Hostile]

Absurd. In your mind that may be the case. I don't buy what you're selling either. I guess it's sour grapes. There is no "re-inventing". Remember, Henson was the fans' golden boy. You're right in that no one really knew anything about Romo, other than a select few. I think it's just sour grapes that you weren't able to see the "pedigree". Call me out as you wish, but you're misconstruing it into something it's not. I never saw anything in Henson, you did. I did see something in Romo, you didn't. And that's the bottom line.

I did not call you out. I gave you and Reality credit for being the only 2 guys I remember who liked Romo. Nors was a fake. The minute Bledsoe was benched he was Romo's biggest enemy. You never were.

But I still say it was more to stir the pot than any other reason and your anti-Henson motives fueled it.

 

[Hostile]

Yeah, it's sort of a revisionist version of how he wants to remember it... saving face, so-to-speak. He beat the term "pedigree" into the ground and was no fan of Romo at all until it became apparent that he had some intangibles that weren't going to go unnoticed and that he, indeed, would succeed.

Romo has made believers out of many. So he shouldn't feel alone.

Wrong as usual.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I did not call you out. I gave you and Reality credit for being the only 2 guys I remember who liked Romo. Nors was a fake. The minute Bledsoe was benched he was Romo's biggest enemy. You never were.

But I still say it was more to stir the pot than any other reason and your anti-Henson motives fueled it.

Look, there is no point in arguing or patting my own back or saying you were wrong. I know you gave me credit. Yet I don't think it's fair to preface it with saying it was more to be an antagonist. I was a true fan of Romo, probably the first to sport a Romo avatar.

Again, remember the context of the time. Hensonites wanted Henson to start. From what I saw, he didn't have any mental ability to be a quarterback. The physical tools may have been there, but the guy was a dunce. He still hasn't made it anywhere. For such talent, that's bizarre. Wait, he's not talented because his head is full of air. Yes he can throw a fast ball, but that never translated to being a quarterback to me.

As far as you knowing what my motives are, I'd say that's impossible to know philosophically. And psychologically it's sort of what's called a thinking distortion on your part.

Yes, I was antagonistic but I was far more antagonized for my views of not supporting the ever-so-talented Henson.

I don't want this to be a huge debate, so I will try not to post anymore. I'll just state that I've always been a fan of Romo's ever since I saw him move in the pocket during preseason when Parcells was here. You can say a lot of things about me, but you can't say I haven't always been a fan of Romo. I have.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Wrong as usual.

I probably am. It wouldn't be the first time.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Not to change the subject, but I saw my baby on the ultra-sound screen today. I'm going to be such a proud father.

 

[Hostile]

I probably am. It wouldn't be the first time.

I did not say one thing to "save face." I have never run from my stances on pedigree or anything else. In 2006 I was calling for Romo over Bledsoe. I have never had an anti-Romo agenda. I don't think he has a huge arm. I said that in the first post of the thread. He has enough other intangibles that the canon arm does not bother me at all.

Back when both Henson and Romo were backups and Romo was playing golf I defended it. I defended it ever since. I defended who he wanted to date. I have never attacked Tony Romo as a player.

That is exactly why I do not buy your entire story about equally for him as you were anti-Henson. I am never going to buy it. I saw too many sig pics and threads to ever believe it was just about loving Romo. I still say you and Reality are the only guys who genuinely said you saw something from him. I will stand by that and give you credit.

You may say it is prefaced. So be it. But I don't pull any punches and I have never seen you as the pro-Romo guy nearly as much as I did the anti-Henson guy and as you have admitted, that was just to agitate.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, "who you are speaks so loudly, I can't hear what you are saying."

That is where I am. I cannot reconcile what I have seen for myself with what you say now.

 

[Hostile]

Not to change the subject, but I saw my baby on the ultra-sound screen today. I'm going to be such a proud father.

You think you know what love is, until you have a baby and they are sleeping on your chest.

Congrats.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I did not say one thing to "save face." I have never run from my stances on pedigree or anything else. In 2006 I was calling for Romo over Bledsoe. I have never had an anti-Romo agenda. I don't think he has a huge arm. I said that in the first post of the thread. He has enough other intangibles that the canon arm does not bother me at all.

Back when both Henson and Romo were backups and Romo was playing golf I defended it. I defended it ever since. I defended who he wanted to date. I have never attacked Tony Romo as a player.

That is exactly why I do not buy your entire story about equally for him as you were anti-Henson. I am never going to buy it. I saw too many sig pics and threads to ever believe it was just about loving Romo. I still say you and Reality are the only guys who genuinely said you saw something from him. I will stand by that and give you credit.

You may say it is prefaced. So be it. But I don't pull any punches and I have never seen you as the pro-Romo guy nearly as much as I did the anti-Henson guy and as you have admitted, that was just to agitate.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, "who you are speaks so loudly, I can't hear what you are saying."

That is where I am. I cannot reconcile what I have seen for myself with what you say now.

It's prefaced. (Let's just agree to disagree.) I argued for Romo as much as I did against Henson, simply because everyone else was arguing FOR Henson. If you can't get the relativity of the context, then that's lost on you and I can't change that.

And thank you for the kind sentiments about the one in the oven. Hopefully it's a healthy baby. I'll find out in 6 weeks if it's male or female. If it's a male, look out CZ fans the next Dallas Cowboy quarterback is in the oven.

:starspin