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

[KJJ]

On closer examination I can give a few differences between the Romo of 06-07 and today. The 06-07 Romo wasn't carrying the monkey on his back the Romo of today is carrying because he had just taken over as the starter and was just establishing himself as the Cowboys QB. I doubt many Cowboy fans expected a lot from Romo when he first took over the team. No one could have imagined how good he would be early on which increased everyones expectations of him. The 06-07 Romo had yet to create the stigma he has today. The fumbled snap in Seattle didn't create the stigma it was the ill-timed mistakes that followed that built the reputation he has for the big mistake. It was the ill-timed mistakes that followed that made everyone go back to that fumbled snap in Seattle.

A championship the following year would have erased that fumbled snap from everyones memory but it's been a series of mistakes since that has given Romo the reputation he has. I honestly saw a more confident Tony Romo in 06-07. Like I said the throws to Fasano and Glenn in the closing minutes of the Colts game in 06 were some of the most clutch I ever saw him make. The Romo of today would turn the ball over in that situation. All the ill-timed mistakes through the years has put a big monkey on his back and it's affected his confidence and the confidence fans have in him. The mistakes have taken their toll on him and it's almost expected that he's going to screw up now and that wasn't the case in 06-07.

 

[Brooksey]

No one is trying to twist your words. You said there's not a coach in the NFL who wouldn't take Romo. You went on to say there are some QB's in the league you personally would take over Romo. How are those comments suppose to be taken? Anyone would assume you're referring to a current starter. There's not a team in the league who wouldn't take Romo as their backup but there's plenty of teams who wouldn't take him over their current starter. The only one who's trying to twist words is you. Show me a quote where I claimed GM's, coach's and scouts wouldn't take Romo because he can't win the big one?

The two statements are independent of one another.

TO CLARIFY FOR KJJ:
1. There are some other QB's I would take given my choice over Romo, (P.Manning, Brady, Brees etc). That's an independent statement. (Case closed)

2. I said, " There is not a coach in the NFL that wouldn't take Romo. I stand by that.

This is also an independent statement and assumes the coach needs a QB. I never said Coughlin would bench Eli or , Bellicheck would bench Brady..etc. Never said that.

 

[Brooksey]

. I honestly saw a more confident Tony Romo in 06-07. Like I said the throws to Fasano and Glenn in the closing minutes of the Colts game were some of the most clutch I ever saw him make. The Romo of today would turn the ball over in that situation. All the ill-timed mistakes through the years has put a big monkey on his back and it's affected his confidence. The mistakes have taken their toll on him and it's almost expected that he's going to screw up now and that wasn't the case in 06-07.

Romo is smarter with the ball today than 2007. His 2013 TD and Int total last year support that.

 

[gimmesix]

Free throws. A player gets fouled after the opening tip of a basketball game, he shoots two fts. With his team down 102-100 the same player gets fouled with the clock showing .01. If you look at it statistically, they both have the same value and its the exact same shot but mentally they are different.

I think that there's a difference in thought process, some thinks that if a player does great statistically for the first 85% of the game/season then whatever he does the rest of the game/season should not tarnish the total performance.

Others say you can do all of that but if you cant close the deal then what's the use.

Romo should get credit for being a great player but when the pressure is on in do or die situation he needs to continue that great play. I cant remember in any of our season ending losses where I can say "man, Romo torched that team but we still couldnt get a win".

You're comparing free throws early in a game to winning or losing a game, though. I don't think those comparisons are equal.

Those FTs at the end of the game is what the team and Romo face in every game. Mentally, I can't say there's a difference in trying to beat San Francisco at the beginning of the season or Philadelphia at the end. Players know if they win the first game, then the last game might not matter, so the pressure is on in each and every game.

What some people tend to do is look at those game-ending FTs at the end of the season as more important or pressure-packed than the ones at the beginning of the season, and I don't think the players view it that way because they know every game is important to achieving those goals. You don't go into Week 1 against the Giants with no pressure to win. You go into Week 1 against the Giants thinking if we win this game, we get a leg up on the race for the division and playoffs.

Is there a quantifiable difference in pressure when you're 8-7 and need to win one game in order to make the playoffs? Maybe, but I think it's more of a sense of desperation than pressure. You don't come back with broken ribs and a punctured lung to try to beat San Fran (since that's been an example given) if you don't feel winning that game is ultimately important. And if you're a team like Dallas has been (always coming down to the wire at the end of the year) the past few years, there might even be more pressure at the beginning of the season to win games and avoid such scenarios.

 

[KJJ]

The two statements are independent of one another.

TO CLARIFY FOR KJJ:
1. There are some other QB's I would take given my choice over Romo, (P.Manning, Brady, Brees etc). That's an independent statement. (Case closed)

2. I said, " There is not a coach in the NFL that wouldn't take Romo. I stand by that.

This is also an independent statement and assumes the coach needs a QB. I never said Coughlin would bench Eli or , Bellicheck would bench Brady..etc. Never said that.

You expect everyone to assume what you meant? Let's see if I can pin you down to a clear answer. You said there's not an NFL coach that wouldn't take Romo. Anyone would assume you're saying they would take him as their starter. Are you not saying that? Any NFL coach would take him as their backup but I can assure you he wouldn't be taken ahead of Luck, Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Cam, Kap, Russell Wilson and a few other QB's. So if there's some QB's you would take over Romo given your choice then how do you know there isn't several head coaches who wouldn't take other QB's over Romo given their choice? Let's see if you can come up with a clear answer to any of those questions.

 

[Brooksey]

You expect everyone to assume what you meant? Let's see if I can pin you down to a clear answer. You said there's not an NFL coach that wouldn't take Romo. Anyone would assume you're saying they would take him as their starter. Are you not saying that? Any NFL coach would take him as their backup but I can assure you he wouldn't be taken ahead of Luck, Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Cam, Kap, Russell Wilson and a few other QB's. So if there's some QB's you would take over Romo given your choice then how do you know there isn't several head coaches who wouldn't take other QB's over Romo given their choice? Let's see if you can come up with a clear answer to any of those questions.

I have already clarified. If you don't understand than move along.

 

[gimmesix]

As for devaluing SF it was a week 2 game and you saw yourself that losing that game didn't negatively impact their season with 14 games to go.

No, but that's kind of the point. San Francisco was 9-2 when December rolled around. The 49ers only had to win one of their last five games to claim the NFC West. So did they not feel pressure in the third game of the season after losing to Dallas to "turn it around" and avoid falling to 1-2? Was that game of lesser importance to them than the game that ultimately clinched the division against St. Louis?

Every game has its pressures. In the first one, you don't want to start out 0-1. No team looks at that game and says, "Ah, it's OK if we lose that one because we have 15 more." Players value the game and feel pressure to win every game because they don't know what tomorrow will bring. Maybe they go into the final three games with their quarterback injured. Maybe they need 13 games to win their division instead of 10.

The idea of late-season games being more pressure-packed than early season games is something simply made up by fans who feel that way because there are too few games in the NFL for any player to not go into each one viewing it as a must-win.

 

[KJJ]

Romo is smarter with the ball today than 2007. His 2013 TD and Int total last year support that.

He had the same 31 TD's and 10 int's in 2011 and followed it up in 2012 with 28 TD's and 19 ints. His 19 int's in 2012 tied his career high of 19 back in 07. The most TD's of his career was in 07. Some years his TD's/int's are up and some years they're down. Once you start thinking he's coming around he's back to that same Jekyll and Hyde Romo. His career low for int's in a full season was 9 back in 09 but he jumped right back up to 19 int's 3 years later. Romo is what he is.

 

[KJJ]

I have already clarified. If you don't understand than move along.

I had to clarify it for you. I knew what you meant all along but you accused me of twisting your words. lol You're just one of those who wants to argue.

 

[KJJ]

You're comparing free throws early in a game to winning or losing a game, though. I don't think those comparisons are equal.

Those FTs at the end of the game is what the team and Romo face in every game. Mentally, I can't say there's a difference in trying to beat San Francisco at the beginning of the season or Philadelphia at the end. Players know if they win the first game, then the last game might not matter, so the pressure is on in each and every game.

What some people tend to do is look at those game-ending FTs at the end of the season as more important or pressure-packed than the ones at the beginning of the season, and I don't think the players view it that way because they know every game is important to achieving those goals. You don't go into Week 1 against the Giants with no pressure to win. You go into Week 1 against the Giants thinking if we win this game, we get a leg up on the race for the division and playoffs.

Is there a quantifiable difference in pressure when you're 8-7 and need to win one game in order to make the playoffs? Maybe, but I think it's more of a sense of desperation than pressure. You don't come back with broken ribs and a punctured lung to try to beat San Fran (since that's been an example given) if you don't feel winning that game is ultimately important. And if you're a team like Dallas has been (always coming down to the wire at the end of the year) the past few years, there might even be more pressure at the beginning of the season to win games and avoid such scenarios.

We're just wasting out time arguing this. Nothing you or I say is going to change our opinions.

 

[gimmesix]

We're just wasting out time arguing this. Nothing you or I say is going to change our opinions.

Well, I had fun trying.

 

[KJJ]

Well, I had fun trying.

You're never going to change anyones opinion here because it's an opinion. Everyone has their own personal view of things. You can convince some their facts are wrong by posting articles and video's but you're never going to change anyones opinion.

 

[birdwells1]

You're comparing free throws early in a game to winning or losing a game, though. I don't think those comparisons are equal.

Those FTs at the end of the game is what the team and Romo face in every game. Mentally, I can't say there's a difference in trying to beat San Francisco at the beginning of the season or Philadelphia at the end. Players know if they win the first game, then the last game might not matter, so the pressure is on in each and every game.

What some people tend to do is look at those game-ending FTs at the end of the season as more important or pressure-packed than the ones at the beginning of the season, and I don't think the players view it that way because they know every game is important to achieving those goals. You don't go into Week 1 against the Giants with no pressure to win. You go into Week 1 against the Giants thinking if we win this game, we get a leg up on the race for the division and playoffs.

Is there a quantifiable difference in pressure when you're 8-7 and need to win one game in order to make the playoffs? Maybe, but I think it's more of a sense of desperation than pressure. You don't come back with broken ribs and a punctured lung to try to beat San Fran (since that's been an example given) if you don't feel winning that game is ultimately important. And if you're a team like Dallas has been (always coming down to the wire at the end of the year) the past few years, there might even be more pressure at the beginning of the season to win games and avoid such scenarios.

What others have stated and I agree is that if you lose game 1 against the Giants you have other games to make up for that loss. When it's win or go home in week 17 or the playoffs the only thing left is "next year", you are playing that game without a safety net.

The SF game showed Romos toughness but if he had the same performance in week 17 games @ Wash, @ Philly, or @ the Giants all you'd have to point to that game to shut up the doubters.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

What others have stated and I agree is that if you lose game 1 against the Giants you have other games to make up for that loss.

Which is poor logic, because the other teams have just as much time as you, except they don't have that one loss on their ledger. All regular season games are regular season games, no matter how people try to make certain ones into super amazing ones.

 

[birdwells1]

Which is poor logic, because the other teams have just as much time as you, except they don't have that one loss on their ledger. All regular season games are regular season games, no matter how people try to make certain ones into super amazing ones.

So for the team that loss, Is their season over? You're trying to make game 1 "a super amazing one" and it isn't.

 

[5Stars]

Which is poor logic, because the other teams have just as much time as you, except they don't have that one loss on their ledger. All regular season games are regular season games, no matter how people try to make certain ones into super amazing ones.

What he does not understand is that needing to win a "elimination" or stupid "win or go home" game is that if you win most or all your early games, then you may not be under the pressure to win that last game to go to the playoffs.

It's uneducated to think otherwise.

If you lose 2 out of your first 5, then the pressure may start to mount, but if you are in a good position record wise on the last stupid made up "elimination" or "go hone" game, you can lose that game and still make the playoffs. Clinch the Division first, that is the goal, then you don't have the stupid made up rules that a poster has came here and made. You clinch the Division by winning any game starting with the first!

But, consider the sources of some of these haters....

 

[gimmesix]

What others have stated and I agree is that if you lose game 1 against the Giants you have other games to make up for that loss. When it's win or go home in week 17 or the playoffs the only thing left is "next year", you are playing that game without a safety net.

The SF game showed Romos toughness but if he had the same performance in week 17 games @ Wash, @ Philly, or @ the Giants all you'd have to point to that game to shut up the doubters.

But we should be able to point to the SF game, which is where the problem exists. Fans give weight to certain games while players want and feel pressure to win each and every one. That Romo was able to step up despite his injury and lead his team to victory against a very good team and very good defense should not be discounted because it came in Week 2.

Instead, some fans look at it and say, well, Romo is 1-5 (or whatever) in win and go home games. IMO, it's stupid to look at those games any differently than games that would make Dallas 1-2, 5-4 or 7-5, etc. It's just a way for fans to negate games that support Romo's play to focus on a small window of games that purportedly do not.

 

[percyhoward]

The SF game showed Romos toughness but if he had the same performance in week 17 games @ Wash, @ Philly, or @ the Giants all you'd have to point to that game to shut up the doubters.

"Doubters" in this case referring to those who make no distinction between 8 losses and the 8th loss.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

You're never going to change anyones opinion here because it's an opinion. Everyone has their own personal view of things. You can convince some their facts are wrong by posting articles and video's but you're never going to change anyones opinion.

The only one who can change anyone's opinion is Tony Romo. He's got to prove everyone wrong and come up big in some late season games, particularly the playoffs.

 

[birdwells1]

But we should be able to point to the SF game, which is where the problem exists. Fans give weight to certain games while players want and feel pressure to win each and every one. That Romo was able to step up despite his injury and lead his team to victory against a very good team and very good defense should not be discounted because it came in Week 2.

Instead, some fans look at it and say, well, Romo is 1-5 (or whatever) in win and go home games. IMO, it's stupid to look at those games any differently than games that would make Dallas 1-2, 5-4 or 7-5, etc. It's just a way for fans to negate games that support Romo's play to focus on a small window of games that purportedly do not.

Dude, this aint Madden. You are trying to take emotions and mental toughness out of sports and that just not possible. Is it coincidence that Romo has never played to his season standard in any elimination losses, if they are just 1 of 16 someone needs to let him know.

They once asked Robert "big shot" Horry how he continue to hit game winners and this was his answer, "when you play with Kobe, Shaq, and Duncan no one is going to blame me if I miss the last shot. After the game you guys will just go to them and ask what went wrong, so I shoot the shot with no pressure at all". Makes sense to me.