Recommended Loss Forensics: Romo vs. the League's Top QB

[KJJ]

Anyone who thinks Roethlisberger can't make athletic plays might want to check his highlights. Not only can he run around avoiding pressure and extending plays but he made one of the greatest tackles in Steelers history during the 05 playoffs vs the Colts saving the Steelers season. Had Roethlisberger missed that tackle the Steelers would have been watching the SB on TV.

 

[5Stars]

Wow way to refute his points by using personal insults, real mature of you. By the contributions you've made here I would guess you're about 5 years old LOL. Please nobody say anything negative about Romo, 5Stars and the stats crew will attack you because you hurt their feelings LMAO.

No, sorry, I will be 5 years old in a month or two...carry on.

 

[DanteEXT]

LOL. Let's pretend the score wasn't 42-14 at the time and that Romo was benched shortly after. LMAO

You really don't make much sense. You whined about his garbage time TDs which is plural. Tony had 3 TDs that day and unless you are counting his 2nd one that tied the score at 14 as garbage then you have a real accuracy problem. You really need to get basic rudimentary facts about what happened in the games down before you start commenting. Of course, you also think his two INT led to 2 Packer scores in that particular game so I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[KJJ]

Romo is not Big Ben 6'5 250 lbs, but he makes very athletic plays.

No Romo isn't Big Ben 6' 5" but from all the Romo fat threads we see every spring/summer you would think he's 250 lbs.

 

[jnday]

I had to thank jnday. I now know why his logic is so messed up. I mean coming from an 80-90 year old dude, that is what I expected.

The Department of Veterans Affairs estimated that in 2011, 670 American World War II veterans died every day.[4] The median age for a World War II veteran in June 2011 was 92 years.[4]

But, he's still going strong, he has Kid Rock as his fan. lol

I knew you would like that.

 

[Blackspider214]

Put Romo in Seattle, they still win a title.

Put Russell Wilson in Dallas and we go 5-11.

This is a tired argument made by so many. Romo has shown nothing that he can lead a team to a Super Bowl, yet so many say that you can place him on all these teams out there and they can win. What is your basis for this argument? Sure can't be what he has accomplished on the field.

Romo is a gunslinger. That is the opposite of what Seattle was doing. They won because Wilson made very few mistakes. I can't see Romo being that guy. Romo is the opposite of what Seattle wants.

 

[KJJ]

You are just another media-tized Romo hater. You repeat word for word ESPN commentary. Don't you have anything original besides elimination games?

I don't even watch ESPN but you're obviously another FAN who thinks they know more about football than those who played the game, coached the game and were GM's in the league. By the way the term "elimination game" started on this board with me. lol

 

[Picksix]

they were a playoff team that year. Romo lost to elite teams like the Titans(where he threw 3 picks.. surprise surprise), Vikings, and Giants.

None of this is relevant to the FACT that if you gave Ktina EIGHT YEARS with a T.O. in his prime and a Dez Bryant not even in his prime... he would win at least ONE playoff game. Tim Tebow won one in what.. his first year starting? Boy, am I glad we have an elite QB like Romo, who is capable of winning one playoff game in eight years. Maybe in another 8 years, Romo just might win as another! We won more games with a 40 year old backup QB. You can't argue that.

Fact? Just how is something that never happened a fact? Facts have concrete evidence that support them. What you are asserting is called a THEORY, and it's not a strong one, either. Kitna had Chad Johnson in Cincy for several years, didn't win anything. They drafted Carson Palmer to replace him. He had Calvin Johnson in Detroit. Didn't win anything. They drafted Matt Stafford to replace him (who also hasn't won anything). So, where it's nice to think that he would have done more than that in Dallas, there's nothing to back it up. Oh, and I can absolutely argue that we won more games with a 40 year old back up, seeing as how Kitna was 38 - not 40. If you want to make a solid argument, stop twisting facts (and leaving out others), and STOP MAKING STUFF UP!

The Colts made the playoffs, but when they played us, they were just better than .500. In the Titans game, two of Romo's INT's went off his receivers' hands into the defenders', including one that hit Bennett right in the hands for what should have been a TD. But fine, ignore that. As for the Giants game - again - we had the lead when Romo went out with the injury. A QB as good as Kitna should have been able to help keep the lead, right? Go ahead and ignore that, too.

I've never called Romo an elite QB. I think he is a very good QB, who like most QB's, needs some help, that IMO he's never had. Is he Peyton Manning? No. Brady? No. Aikman? Staubach? Montana? Of course not. But he's every bit as good as Eli, Flacco, and Wilson. Those guys benefitted from a lot more support than Romo ever had. It takes so much more than just one great WR. That you brought up Tebow proves that. Shoot, Mark Sanchez has 4 playoff "wins", and he didn't really have great receivers, yet they beat the Colts and Patriots back to back (and it's not like he put up great numbers in those games).

But if you want to focus just on one season, and say the team won more games because the QB was better (even though the numbers don't support that), fine. Let's go back to 1991, Aikman's 3rd year. He gets hurt in game 12, against Washington. They're 6-5 at the time. Steve Beuerlein replaces him, and they go on to defeat the eventual SB champs in that game, which was at Washington. With Beuerlein, they win the next four games, and even win a road playoff game. Given your logic, the Cowboys should have stuck with Beuerlein, and put Aikman on the bench. Glad they didn't. Now again, I'm not comparing Romo with Aikman. The point is, just because a backup QB comes in and the team wins more games, doesn't mean the QB is better. It means the team played better.

Over and out.

 

[5Stars]

Fact? Just how is something that never happened a fact? Facts have concrete evidence that support them. What you are asserting is called a THEORY, and it's not a strong one, either. Kitna had Chad Johnson in Cincy for several years, didn't win anything. They drafted Carson Palmer to replace him. He had Calvin Johnson in Detroit. Didn't win anything. They drafted Matt Stafford to replace him (who also hasn't won anything). So, where it's nice to think that he would have done more than that in Dallas, there's nothing to back it up. Oh, and I can absolutely argue that we won more games with a 40 year old back up, seeing as how Kitna was 38 - not 40. If you want to make a solid argument, stop twisting facts (and leaving out others), and STOP MAKING STUFF UP!

The Colts made the playoffs, but when they played us, they were just better than .500. In the Titans game, two of Romo's INT's went off his receivers' hands into the defenders', including one that hit Bennett right in the hands for what should have been a TD. But fine, ignore that. As for the Giants game - again - we had the lead when Romo went out with the injury. A QB as good as Kitna should have been able to help keep the lead, right? Go ahead and ignore that, too.

I've never called Romo an elite QB. I think he is a very good QB, who like most QB's, needs some help, that IMO he's never had. Is he Peyton Manning? No. Brady? No. Aikman? Staubach? Montana? Of course not. But he's every bit as good as Eli, Flacco, and Wilson. Those guys benefitted from a lot more support than Romo ever had. It takes so much more than just one great WR. That you brought up Tebow proves that. Shoot, Mark Sanchez has 4 playoff "wins", and he didn't really have great receivers, yet they beat the Colts and Patriots back to back (and it's not like he put up great numbers in those games).

But if you want to focus just on one season, and say the team won more games because the QB was better (even though the numbers don't support that), fine. Let's go back to 1991, Aikman's 3rd year. He gets hurt in game 12, against Washington. They're 6-5 at the time. Steve Beuerlein replaces him, and they go on to defeat the eventual SB champs in that game, which was at Washington. With Beuerlein, they win the next four games, and even win a road playoff game. Given your logic, the Cowboys should have stuck with Beuerlein, and put Aikman on the bench. Glad they didn't. Now again, I'm not comparing Romo with Aikman. The point is, just because a backup QB comes in and the team wins more games, doesn't mean the QB is better. It means the team played better.

Over and out.

BOOM....BOOM....boom, Post of the day!

 

[DanteEXT]

I don't even watch ESPN but you're obviously another FAN who thinks they know more about football than those who played the game, coached the game and were GM's in the league. By the way the term "elimination game" started on this board with me. lol

And you disseminated it to your 8 million followers and miraculously the media picked up on it, starting using it so that Simms could say "Now, we’ve all of a sudden created a new stat for Tony Romo, elimination games. We don’t say it about any other quarterback, but elimination games for Tony Romo because it sounds a lot better. ‘We can get more losses on that column.’"

Riiiggghhhttttt..... more like you heard it and regurgitated it.

 

[Brooksey]

I don't even watch ESPN but you're obviously another FAN who thinks they know more about football than those who played the game, coached the game and were GM's in the league. By the way the term "elimination game" started on this board with me. lol

I played through college and coached a few years. There's not a coach in the NFL that wouldn't take Romo or back your claim. There are some quarterback's in the league I personally would take over Romo...I'm not going to defend his or their dumb mistakes however I've seen him play very well and carry the entire team on his back. I know what he can do, and he's a dedicated professional to his craft. I respect what the man has accomplished and think he's still getting better.

I have seen him play hurt, I've seen 20+ comeback wins in the 4th quarter, he has heart and he's a good smart QB. It's my opinion we throw too much late in games with questionable protection.

Tony Romo is an asset to this football team whether you "Like" him or not.

 

[KJJ]

And you disseminated it to your 8 million followers and miraculously the media picked up on it, starting using it so that Simms could say "Now, we’ve all of a sudden created a new stat for Tony Romo, elimination games. We don’t say it about any other quarterback, but elimination games for Tony Romo because it sounds a lot better. ‘We can get more losses on that column.’"

Riiiggghhhttttt..... more like you heard it and regurgitated it.

I can assure you I never heard the term "elimination game" prior to mentioning it on this board immediately after the Cowboys lost to the Giants in the season finale on Jan 1st 2012. I can't imagine why the term would have come up prior to that game in regards to Romo when he only played in one season finale elimination game vs Philly prior to that Giants game. Had the term "elimination game" been used in regards to Romo prior to the Cowboys/Giants season finale matchup on New Years day it would have created a huge stir on this board. You can bet someone would have posted that Romo's season finale loss to Philly in Dec of 08 was being added to his playoff record by either ESPN or someone else and it would have resulted in a huge angry discussion. Maybe the mods could do a search to see if the term "elimination game" was used on this board prior to me using it 2 12 years ago.

Someone started a thread right after the Cowboys lost that elimination game to the Giants. One poster commented that it was a shame that Romo wouldn't be able to add to his playoff resume. I commented that if you count the season finale loss to Philly in 08 which was like a playoff game with the loss to the Giants which was like a playoff game then Romo's elimination game record would be 1-5. That comment created a HUGE UPROAR! LOL The thread went on for PAGES with mostly personal attacks against me until the thread had to be closed. The term "elimination game" bled off into other threads with more attacks against me.

All I heard was KJJ created a new term so he can continue to hate on Romo. LOL A few months into the offseason the media started bringing up the term "elimination games" in regards to Romo. Some of the things that were discussed by the media were exactly what we discussed here months earlier. I've debated every aspect of Romo and his game in the 8 years he's been the starter. All we do here is eat, sleep and bleep Cowboys football. Even those who cover the NFL don't know the Cowboys like some of us who've been following the team for decades. We get into discussions here concerning the Cowboys that some in the media never even consider because we examine the team 24/7 365 days a year.

 

[Brooksey]

This is what this argument always comes to. If a poster disagrees with the Romo-lovers on this board, they question his football knowledge and start with the insults. Nevermind the GMs, scouts and coaches in this league that feels like Dallas can never win a Super Bowl with Romo at QB. The only people that has this great football knowledge is the Romo-lovers on this board and they have to resort to insults when they are confronted with Romo's record when he is under the pressure of elimination games.

For every Dallas hating GM or Scout who made a comment like that about Romo there are 30 other ones who will take the other side of your argument. The haters are in the minority just like you. The sad thing is you call yourself a Dallas Cowboys fan.

Romo is well respected around the league and there's not a coach that wouldn't have him.

Name your coaches and GM's that feel Romo can't win the big one or are you just talking out of your.....?

 

[KJJ]

I played through college and coached a few years. There's not a coach in the NFL that wouldn't take Romo or back your claim. There are some quarterback's in the league I personally would take over Romo...I'm not going to defend his or their dumb mistakes however I've seen him play very well and carry the entire team on his back. I know what he can do, and he's a dedicated professional to his craft. I respect what the man has accomplished and think he's still getting better.

I have seen him play hurt, I've seen 20+ comeback wins in the 4th quarter, he has heart and he's a good smart QB. It's my opinion we throw too much late in games with questionable protection.

Tony Romo is an asset to this football team whether you "Like" him or not.

One minute you say there's not a coach in the NFL that wouldn't take Romo but there's some QB's in the league that you personally would take over him. I can assure you there's plenty of NFL head coaches who wouldn't take Romo over their current starter. That's not a knock on Romo it's a testament to how good some of the young QB's are today. So what exactly is my claim? I have a lot of respect for Romo regardless of what you're reading into my posts. He's one of the very few undrafted free agents to become a solid starting NFL QB.

I've seen Romo do a lot of great things including carrying the team on his back but those performances came in lesser games not elimination games. What he did vs SF in 2011 in week 2 of the regular season is what I want to see him do in a make or break game. I want to see him make some of the same amazing plays in the playoffs that we see him make vs lesser teams in lesser games during the regular season.

 

[dragon_mikal]

LOL...24 pages and counting.

I don't even need to read the posts to see what this thread has devolved into.

I'll only say that every fan on here should be rooting for Romo to be successful because a successful Romo means this team has a chance.

 

[DFWJC]

And you disseminated it to your 8 million followers and miraculously the media picked up on it, starting using it so that Simms could say "Now, we’ve all of a sudden created a new stat for Tony Romo, elimination games. We don’t say it about any other quarterback, but elimination games for Tony Romo because it sounds a lot better. ‘We can get more losses on that column.’"

Riiiggghhhttttt..... more like you heard it and regurgitated it.

Certainly the term elimination game is nothing to brag about. You got that right.

Furthermore, even if it was a real thing, it's embarrassing even to see anyone pin a total 100% team result on one player like that.

 

[DoomsDayD]

LOL...24 pages and counting.

I don't even need to read the posts to see what this thread has devolved into.

I'll only say that every fan on here should be rooting for Romo to be successful because a successful Romo means this team has a chance.

Well you figure you have at least 3-4 years left of this!!! Hopefully in that time span we see something resembling a playoff team.

 

[rpntex]

LOL. Let's pretend the score wasn't 42-14 at the time and that Romo was benched shortly after. LMAO

The operative word there is TDs---plural. Romo threw ONE, then gave way to Orton. If he was "padding his stats", he would have remained in the game.

So tell us again, Mr. Sabermatrician---just how much "padding" did that one TD amount to?

 

[KJJ]

Riiiggghhhttttt..... more like you heard it and regurgitated it.

The only one who heard something and regurgitated it is you. If you plan on playing along with that agenda you'll be another one who'll end up off my discussion list.

 

[Idgit]

I'm sad by what's happened to this great thread. Thanks again, percy, for putting the great information together.