How many super-bowls does Tony Romo win with the 2016-2024 Cowboys?

[Sarge]

There was no question in my mind whatsoever that as long as Romo was our QB we would never win a Super Bowl. I feel the exact same way now.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

didn't say Dak didn't play bad. that wasn't the defense. that Romo didn't get the job done. now you want to evaluate who did less bad than the other.

its not hate. its reality. Romo 2-4 in the playoffs. bottom line.

In the post I quoted...you didn't say it. We weren't talking about TEAM RECORDS we were talking about QB chokes.

I'd have to refresh my memory, but I don;t recall Romo contributing that much to the losses. I certainly do not abide by the team losing and just blaming the QB de facto.


I wouldn't have much of a problem with Dak in our loss to GB, except he heavily contributed to it. The 2 ints were absolutely inexplicable. Like lost his mind inexplicable. Not even end of game risk for the win Romo type stuff.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

There was no question in my mind whatsoever that as long as Romo was our QB we would never win a Super Bowl. I feel the exact same way now.

"Tony Romo had a passer rating of 93.0 with 1,316 yards, 8 touchdowns and 2 interceptions in 6 games in the playoffs in his career."

Those are winnable stats.

 

[starfan1]

Bold> I have zero problem with that assumption if it is true. Similarly, it would make sense if Romo convince one or both of them to let him play for that reason.

However, it runs logically counter to the I-Know-One-More-Hit-And-He's-A-Quadriplegic argument that has still not run its course in eight years. An explanation cannot be 'One reason why we are not playing Romo is so that he will not suffer a life-changing or life-threatening injury' if you actually allow him to play a single down in any football situation.

Starting quarterbacks, wearing red shirts over their jersey, have been hit and/or hurt in practice AFTER coaches have warned everyone, "Don't. Hit. The. Quarterback." So (not directed at you) the 'We do not want Candice left forever tending to her bed-ridden husband' holds zero water.

Jones and Garrett had access and input from medical professionals concerning the medical fitness of Romo to play. They had access and input from Romo himself whether he thought it was wise for him to play. Both men kept Romo at backup instead of elevating or acquiring another quarterback to replace Romo.

The logical reason why Jones and Garrett did not allow Romo to play the entire season was solely and 100% because they completely backed Dak Prescott as the starter. Dak/Romo conversations should revolve completely around that logic. Discussion should never detour into the 'No one wants to see Romo taken off the field on life support if they started him' Twilight Zone nonsense.

Some people should cease the 'They-Did-What's-Best-For-Romo' rhetoric and instead stick with what is extremely likely to be the actual truth. Garrett and Jones made the decision a rookie quarterback gave the offense the best chance of competing for Super Bowl LI. Period.

And yes. Both Jones and Garrett were and still are idiots, lol.

/rant

agree with all of it ! I believe 10 games in a row can make your mind up about things.

 

[starfan1]

Nobody is pretending anything. Certainly not me. I never said he was perfect. Not sure what the problem is.

I also said and stand by they are most certainly not the same qb. I also said not better or worse....just different. Might be in this thread.

Not sure what the deal is here. So i liked romo and you dont. No biggie.

Dude I have been posting with you here for 3 or 4 years and at the ranch prior you more than liked Romo. You go on the defense anytime anyone says anything. I liked Romo fine till I had to endure all the excuse making from his heavy duty fans. you have almost 19000 post and Im going to go out on the limb and say that 16000 are in defense or support on Romo and Zeke maybe more. And there were plenty more at the ranch. I dont have an issue with you or anyone else liking any player or to some extent even hating a player thats you're perrogative.

it does get old when its over and over and over. And Im not referring to just you here because you tend to feel like its always an attack on you and that is not my intent. Romo is past tense since 16 and yet we still are debating the same crapola, and if youre standard is wins in the post season they are the same QB. I dont believe that wins are a QB stat and both of them had other factors that contributed to losses beyond themself.

Dak was personally responsible for 10 points i say in green bay game at the very least 14 if you want to go that far. We gave up a boat load. and for every interception there is a question mark of how it happened with every QB.

Bottom line if you dont like a player evreything is magnified in your eyes. It all boils down to liking or disliking a player or a poster's defense of that player. I know you have been in game threads over the years they are ridiculous on how ridiculed these fans are for players especially dak.

its probably about 25% of the fanbase and its even funnier when the cowboys are on a win streak they dissapear

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

In the post I quoted...you didn't say it. We weren't talking about TEAM RECORDS we were talking about QB chokes.

I'd have to refresh my memory, but I don;t recall Romo contributing that much to the losses. I certainly do not abide by the team losing and just blaming the QB de facto.


I wouldn't have much of a problem with Dak in our loss to GB, except he heavily contributed to it. The 2 ints were absolutely inexplicable. Like lost his mind inexplicable. Not even end of game risk for the win Romo type stuff.

losses are losses right? and when your #2 offense scored almost 50% less than its normal output. your offense choked.

now, people make excuses for Romo, because he was their favorite and they don't like Dak. and Some defend Dak and some don't.

nothing different. its trying to differentiate between choking and bigger choking. take your pick. end result is the same.

 

[Redline360]

all I hear is a spin. lets excuse Romo, but Blame Dak. I am not defending either. I am saying both underachieved and both had opportunities. and btw, its a projection on your part that he would have had a 50+ yard TD, but I get the spin.

Giants defense was not elite. they were top 10 in yards, but 17th in scoring against. 23rd in TOs, 3rd in total penalties...

so no. not elite...but I am sure there is a spin coming.

I think you are beyond help, as you have made every excuse for Romo, blaming everybody, elevating Giants to elite, etc. except romo....so there we have it.

There is no spin it's literally what happened... I said they were elite in the post season not allowing no more then 20 points. But if you want to look at the regular season to they lead the league in sacks. Statistically speaking the 2007 giants were the worst team to ever win a superbowl up to that point based upon regular season overall stats if I remember correctly. They had talent on that team though and took them a while to gel and finally clicked when it mattered. They also dominated the 2008 season with that team starting 11-1 before the whole gun incident.

And no I don't make excuses for Romo I have said numerous times he's had some *** moments but you would be entirely wrong in the situation you mentioned. He was far from terrible or choking that Giants game

 

[mmohican29]

That would put Tony Romo retiring at 44. How many superbowls does he win in that eight year span?

We had some really good teams in those eight years but our bus driver of a qb hasn’t capitalized!!

0.

He is exactly the same QB as Dak. Just looks and plays different on your TV.

No, I'm not kidding.

 

[morat1959]

The only difference is Romo looked good while losing and never had that deer in the headlights look. The results were the same though.

I did see him with his head down on the bench during games. He would bounce back pretty quick a lot of times. Never saw the deer in the headlights look on him. He looked disgusted a lot.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

There is no spin it's literally what happened... I said they were elite in the post season not allowing no more then 20 points. But if you want to look at the regular season to they lead the league in sacks. Statistically speaking the 2007 giants were the worst team to ever win a superbowl up to that point based upon regular season overall stats if I remember correctly. They had talent on that team though and took them a while to gel and finally clicked when it mattered. They also dominated the 2008 season with that team starting 11-1 before the whole gun incident.

And no I don't make excuses for Romo I have said numerous times he's had some *** moments but you would be entirely wrong in the situation you mentioned. He was far from terrible or choking that Giants game

completion percentage of 50%. 200 yards, is nothing to write home about. he didn't produce at the level that was needed.

so you just said, the Giants defense played at a high level. but SF in 2023 was the best defense in the league. yet Dak played bad and its his fault?

again, not defending Dak. but Why Romo gets a pass against a good defense, but yet criticize Dak?

 

[SwagSurfer]

0

This is the correct answer.

 

[Redline360]

completion percentage of 50%. 200 yards, is nothing to write home about. he didn't produce at the level that was needed.

so you just said, the Giants defense played at a high level. but SF in 2023 was the best defense in the league. yet Dak played bad and its his fault?

again, not defending Dak. but Why Romo gets a pass against a good defense, but yet criticize Dak?

Simple minded approach. Keep moving that goal post we can do this all day.

Yards does not equal greatness. Look at Daks yards and TDs vs GB. Fave value stats one would think he played lights out but in reality he was atrocious 90% of the game until starters and certain 2nd string guys were pulled. Smoke and mirrors

Now Crayton could have contributed dang near 60-70 yards on two catches alone but thats in hindsight as every quarterback suffers from dropped balls.

Romo was also missing his biggest weapon as he was hurt and pretty anemic all game while Dak had two perennial 1k recievers that were healthy. Craytons was nothing special.

Also Romo had us tied going into half time and ahead going into the 4th with no WR weapons. Dak on the other had has us down at half and entering the 4th both games

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Bold> I have zero problem with that assumption if it is true. Similarly, it would make sense if Romo convince one or both of them to let him play for that reason.

However, it runs logically counter to the I-Know-One-More-Hit-And-He's-A-Quadriplegic argument that has still not run its course in eight years. An explanation cannot be 'One reason why we are not playing Romo is so that he will not suffer a life-changing or life-threatening injury' if you actually allow him to play a single down in any football situation.

Starting quarterbacks, wearing red shirts over their jersey, have been hit and/or hurt in practice AFTER coaches have warned everyone, "Don't. Hit. The. Quarterback." So (not directed at you) the 'We do not want Candice left forever tending to her bed-ridden husband' holds zero water.

Jones and Garrett had access and input from medical professionals concerning the medical fitness of Romo to play. They had access and input from Romo himself whether he thought it was wise for him to play. Both men kept Romo at backup instead of elevating or acquiring another quarterback to replace Romo.

The logical reason why Jones and Garrett did not allow Romo to play the entire season was solely and 100% because they completely backed Dak Prescott as the starter. Dak/Romo conversations should revolve completely around that logic. Discussion should never detour into the 'No one wants to see Romo taken off the field on life support if they started him' Twilight Zone nonsense.

Some people should cease the 'They-Did-What's-Best-For-Romo' rhetoric and instead stick with what is extremely likely to be the actual truth. Garrett and Jones made the decision a rookie quarterback gave the offense the best chance of competing for Super Bowl LI. Period.

And yes. Both Jones and Garrett were and still are idiots, lol.

/rant

I don't think the Cowboys ever had player health in mind. Emmitt, Troy, Tony, Zeke...just to name some I recall...all played pretty hurt. These guys are tough....they WANT to play (it's not always about just the money for some). But at some point the league and the teams have to have player safety priority.

Romo coming in for a series...and instantly pulled....is a very strange mystery. Dak being the starter is not. Jerry even said "don't mess with a streak". Like vegas grandma at the slots.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

This is the correct answer.

Just an opinion is all it is.

 

[exciter]

Almost as many as he did in his first 10 seasons as a starter!!!

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Dude I have been posting with you here for 3 or 4 years and at the ranch prior you more than liked Romo. You go on the defense anytime anyone says anything. I liked Romo fine till I had to endure all the excuse making from his heavy duty fans. you have almost 19000 post and Im going to go out on the limb and say that 16000 are in defense or support on Romo and Zeke maybe more. And there were plenty more at the ranch. I dont have an issue with you or anyone else liking any player or to some extent even hating a player thats you're perrogative.

it does get old when its over and over and over. And Im not referring to just you here because you tend to feel like its always an attack on you and that is not my intent. Romo is past tense since 16 and yet we still are debating the same crapola, and if youre standard is wins in the post season they are the same QB. I dont believe that wins are a QB stat and both of them had other factors that contributed to losses beyond themself.

Dak was personally responsible for 10 points i say in green bay game at the very least 14 if you want to go that far. We gave up a boat load. and for every interception there is a question mark of how it happened with every QB.

Bottom line if you dont like a player evreything is magnified in your eyes. It all boils down to liking or disliking a player or a poster's defense of that player. I know you have been in game threads over the years they are ridiculous on how ridiculed these fans are for players especially dak.

its probably about 25% of the fanbase and its even funnier when the cowboys are on a win streak they dissapear

I "go on the defense" when people say untrue things. Period. Not necessarily opinions I don't agree with. That's fine.

I have NEVER said Romo played perfectly. But his records say he is FAR from a perennial choker. That is a fact so I defend that record. That is all.

I have mentioned before...I'd rather have Romo NEVER mentioned again EVER...the trade off would be worth it.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

The real question should be will Jerry ever win a super bowl again? Right?

What do Dak and Romo have to do with it? Worse QB's have won super bowls.

 

[john van brocklin]

That would put Tony Romo retiring at 44. How many superbowls does he win in that eight year span?

We had some really good teams in those eight years but our bus driver of a qb hasn’t capitalized!!

Zero...
Those teams were more than a QB away.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

0. Romo was a choker too

Which games are you talking about? Let's get on the same page on your definition of "choker". His stats say otherwise.

Here's where you won't say, ammirite?

 

[JustChip]

The real question should be will Jerry ever win a super bowl again? Right?

What do Dak and Romo have to do with it? Worse QB's have won super bowls.

Very salient question. And the answer is no. Maybe Stevie does after Jerry crosses that silent sea, but even that is highly doubtful.