Is Romo sucking you in again?

[TheCount]

If that's true then how do you explain the games where he plays lights out and we still lose? Face it, we're a bad team with a great QB. There's no way in hell a team should lose when your QB throws for 500 yards and 5 tds, or 400 yards and 4 tds. If this team had an average defense, then we're a playoff team the past 2-3 years.

Because it's the NFL and just because you're playing lights out doesn't mean the other team isn't. You can be good and still lose.

 

[FLCowboyFan]

I am a big Romo fan and I believe we wouldn't be half the team without him. That being said in situations like the Denver game Romo threw a last minute INT that tore my heart out. I am hoping however it ends this year it won't end in a Romo turnover. That would do a lot to shake the tag that he has for choking.

 

[CaptainCreed]

It's a difference, but it hasn't been a major one, as far as W-L is concerned.

Last year, our defense was 15th in punts forced per drive, this year it's 31st.

Last year, our offense was 9th in fewest punts per drive, this year it's 27th.

Which makes the dependency on the turnover differential even scarier because of the apparent decreasing efficiency on both sides of the ball revealed by those stats. Without Romo protecting the ball and the D forcing double the TOs, I doubt we are 7-5, or status quo 6-6. Honestly what Romo did last year, coming back in all those games (I believe we never scored more than 10 points in the first half all 2012), is unbelievable even if Dallas just finished 8-8 as we pulled off a lot of games we probably should not have. We played behind a lot in 2012 and having to throw so much in 2nd halves may actually be the reason for the difference in offensive efficiency. I prefer 2013 to 2012 in that respect even if it appears the same with a better turnover differential or less efficiency in terms of punts/yards, however you want to look at it. I have not researched the stats much though so just my 2 cents.

 

[jobberone]

Let's not pretend Romo has been perfect, there have been stretches where he's looked downright terrible and field vision will never be a strong suit of his. On the plus side, he's protected the ball and has only turned the ball over multiple times in one game this year.

The team, as always, goes as Romo goes. When he's good, we're good. When he's bad, we're downright awful.

That being said, the bitter taste of the Washington game last year hasn't quite left my mouth. I want to see how the rest of these division games go.

This is perhaps his greatest attribute. I'd have to think awhile to find someone with his pocket presence and elusiveness along with the ability to keep focused downfield and make plays.

 

[dstovall5]

Because it's the NFL and just because you're playing lights out doesn't mean the other team isn't. You can be good and still lose.

"The team, as always, goes as Romo goes. When he's good, we're good. When he's bad, we're downright awful."

That still doesn't explain what I said in regards to your above post in bold. How is it that we're good when Romo is good, yet we still lose when Romo balls out? Like for example that Denver game, our team as a whole didn't play good. Romo and the offense played lights out, but our defense couldn't even force a punt. So if our team is good when Romo is good, why didn't they play good against Denver? We couldn't even force a single punt which would've won the game.

It's already been proven that this team's overall play has no correlation to how Romo performs. Specifically speaking, our defense will be bad regardless of what Romo does. That's why we only win 60% of our games even when Romo puts up a 100 qb rating performance, when the average win % with a 100 qb rating is 80%. Bad team, good QB.

If we're going to make a playoff run this year, it's going to be because our defense steps up, not because Romo balls out for 400 yards and 4 tds.

 

[Redball Express]

I'm a big Romo fan but I still haven't forgave him after the Washington game from last year.

I just don't always trust him because he will put a dagger in your chest.


With that said he is pretty much all we got because our defense sucks, our coaching sucks, and the offense plays with zero urgency if the game is close or we have a lead.

This rings true to me.

Romo is the only superstar on the team and he's just taking too much credit for its success or failure.

That being said..it's not the first QB who couldn't win world championships in Dallas.

Seen this before many times.

Meredith giving way to Craig Morton.

Him giving way to Roger Staubach..

Staubach giving way to Danny White..

Morton and White couldn't cut it much like Romo.

They also put the franchise thru long failure periods, too.

So yes, Romo is a ticking time bomb IMO.

 

[percyhoward]

The team, as always, goes as Romo goes. When he's good, we're good. When he's bad, we're downright awful.

The above quote is one of the biggest misconceptions about this team--that the team is only as good as Romo. Man, if that were true, we'd be a playoff team on a yearly basis. Romo has been a top 10 QB in each of his qualifying seasons. 12 teams make the playoffs every season. The team is not and has not been as good as Romo.

You often hear the quote, "If Romo doesn't make a stupid mistake, we'll win." Going back the last 10 times Romo has turned the ball over in a game, Dallas is 6-4.

The last 10 times Romo has NOT had a turnover, we're only 5-5.

Since 2009, when a QB puts up a 100 rating in a game, that team wins 80% of the time. When Romo does it, Dallas wins 65% of the time.

Since 2009, Romo's pass rating in the LOSSES is 90.0, which is far better than any other QB.

Pass Rating in Losses since 2009
(min 700 attempts)
Romo 90.0 (-5.8)
Rivers 83.3 (-12.3)
Roethlisberger 83.3 (-9.4)
Brees 82.3 (-12.7)
Schaub 81.3 (-9.4)
Palmer 80.0 (-5.9)
Brady 79.1 (-16.9)
Ryan 78.1 (-12.6)

Look at the difference between these QB's ratings in the losses and their career rating. Rivers, Brees, Brady, and Ryan all have ratings more than 12 points lower than normal in the losses. IOW, when their teams lose, it's often due to the performance of the QB. When the Cowboys lose, it's often despite the performance of the QB.

The problem is not that the team is only as good as Romo (which wouldn't be a "problem" at all), it's that the team is only as good as the team.

 

[TheCount]

This is perhaps his greatest attribute. I'd have to think awhile to find someone with his pocket presence and elusiveness along with the ability to keep focused downfield and make plays.

pocket presence and field vision aren't the same thing. Romo misses open guys all the time, and always has. I do agree that pocket presence is one of his biggest strengths.

That still doesn't explain what I said in regards to your above post in bold. How is it that we're good when Romo is good, yet we still lose when Romo balls out?

Pretty sure I answered that question.

The above quote is one of the biggest misconceptions about this team--that the team is only as good as Romo. Man, if that were true, we'd be a playoff team on a yearly basis.

I can't even begin to express how much I detest stats without context but let me be clear. When I said "When Romo is good, we're good and when he's bad we're bad" you can either read that to say "Whenever Romo plays well, we win" or "Without Romo playing well, we have no shot." Seems that everyone wants to read that line in the most argumentative way possible because I didn't just heap a bunch of blind praise on Romo in the post.

My point is that without Romo playing well, the team barely stands a chance.

Eitherway, I've watched plenty of games where Romo did zilch for 2 quarters then when the game got out of hand, here we come storming back. End of the day, Romo has good stats but they don't put "Did nothing for two quarters" in the stat book next to QB rating, do they.

 

[percyhoward]

Count, the "when he's good, we're good," simply isn't true. Wish it was.

 

[dstovall5]

Count, the "when he's good, we're good," simply isn't true. Wish it was.

So I'm not the only one who read it as that way either aye? Just making sure ...

 

[Gemini Dolly]

Nope. Those days are long gone since 2011.

I do not trust him to play well if we are in another "win and in" situation.

 

[lostar2009]

I must admit I haven't been the biggest Romo supporter. And my two biggest offseason gripes were extending Romo and Franchising Spencer. But for some strange reason this year seems different. I feel like Romo's play has carried this team. And he's taken on a bigger leadership role. So I look forward to the next four games. And I hope Romo can shed the Greek tragedy label.

To be honest if Romo fails us this year he needs to be gone. We play Chicago, Green bay, eagles and Washington next. We should win at least 3 of our next games. I just do not see how Romo or this team can screw this up. But..then again its the Cowboys with Romo.

 

[Tabascocat]

To be honest if Romo fails us this year he needs to be gone. We play Chicago, Green bay, eagles and Washington next. We should win at least 3 of our next games. I just do not see how Romo or this team can screw this up. But..then again its the Cowboys with Romo.

More like the Cowboys and defense but don't let me clout your judgement. If Dallas does somehow miss out on the playoffs, it, most likely, will not be due to Romo.

 

[Section446]

Nope.

 

[theebs]

To be honest if Romo fails us this year he needs to be gone. We play Chicago, Green bay, eagles and Washington next. We should win at least 3 of our next games. I just do not see how Romo or this team can screw this up. But..then again its the Cowboys with Romo.

have you seen the bears play offense? Romo doesn't play defense, have you paid attention to our defense? the bears should put 40 on the board easily Monday night. the packers with Rodgers should get into the high 30's easily.

The eagles offense should get into the high 30's. Not sure what to think of Washington they may give us their last best effort of the year or just quit...

either way romo is going to have to lead our offense to a ton of points in two games on the road in the cold. that is asking a lot.

I assure you, much like the last few years if we don't win in December its on the defense and not the quarterback no matter what the producers of ESPN's lousy programming tell you.

 

[big dog cowboy]

To be honest if Romo fails us this year he needs to be gone.

Seriously? Withi this defense?

 

[theebs]

I am a big Romo fan and I believe we wouldn't be half the team without him. That being said in situations like the Denver game Romo threw a last minute INT that tore my heart out. I am hoping however it ends this year it won't end in a Romo turnover. That would do a lot to shake the tag that he has for choking.

if your a cowboys fan as you say and have been paying attention you would know that the guy is in no way a choker and its asinine for a fan of this team to even say that.

Im sorry but all of you people sticking these labels on the guy come off as simpletons who watched the espn highlights of the games and not the games themselves.

 

[dstovall5]

For the most part, you know someone's full of B.S in regards to Romo when they start off like this -

"I'm a Romo supporter, BUT"

"I used to be a fan of Romo, BUT"

"I love Romo, BUT"

"Romo's good, BUT"

"Romo wasn't the reason we lost, BUT"

It's funny when people criticize the guy, they feel the need to put they're a Romo supporter before it, like that somehow makes their criticism more legit. Always a good laugh.

 

[Jakethesnake3]

pocket presence and field vision aren't the same thing. Romo misses open guys all the time, and always has. I do agree that pocket presence is one of his biggest strengths.



Pretty sure I answered that question.



I can't even begin to express how much I detest stats without context but let me be clear. When I said "When Romo is good, we're good and when he's bad we're bad" you can either read that to say "Whenever Romo plays well, we win" or "Without Romo playing well, we have no shot." Seems that everyone wants to read that line in the most argumentative way possible because I didn't just heap a bunch of blind praise on Romo in the post.

My point is that without Romo playing well, the team barely stands a chance.

Eitherway, I've watched plenty of games where Romo did zilch for 2 quarters then when the game got out of hand, here we come storming back. End of the day, Romo has good stats but they don't put "Did nothing for two quarters" in the stat book next to QB rating, do they.

Hahaha, Another stat created just for Romo. "Did nothing for two quarters stat". Wow. Get a life man

 

[SportsGuru80]

I'm a Romo fan however he'll have to prove his worth these last 4 games.