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

[Vtwin]

I've always wondered if the muffed snap against Seattle didn't happen would this ridiculous perception exist.

It was in everyone's heads that Parcells was not letting Romo loose and then BAM, muffed snap, and the legend of Tony Romo was born.

Ever since, those so inclined seem to just see what they want to see. Black and white. Cut and dried. All the nuances of the play reduced to one simple conclusion. Rookie receivers running sloppy routes (Denver game) or seeing "something" and breaking in an unexpected way (Jet's game). Personnel circumstances, game situation and poor play from others leading to wing and a prayer situations (Washington game to get in). All reduced to the simplest possible explanation.

1-15 no problem. 13-14 years between playoff games, piece of cake.

Seeing this gibberish go on and on by those who like to think of themselves as knowledgeable fans on THE Cowboys forum...

Embarrassing.

 

[Picksix]

The 2 wins vs Philly weren't in come from behind clutch situations. The Cowboys dominated them in both games we're talking about him being clutch in big games. The win over the Vikings happened in week 9 and didn't have the Cowboys season riding on it try reading what the discussion is about. The Washington game was in week 16 vs a 3 win team that had packed it in for the season. I mentioned Romo has had many clutch performances but not in elimination/playoff games.

So then, what do you consider clutch? Those were both high magnitude games at the end of the season, one of them being a "win or go home" game. Yes, they dominated them, in no small part because he was "clutch" the entire game. Clutch doesn't just happen at the end of the game. Would it have been better if he had been average or poor for most of the game, then led one great drive to win it? What would be considered the better performance?

I see your point about people increasing the magnitude of Romo's winning performances and downplaying the losing ones, but honestly, you're doing the same thing, only from the opposite direction. You find ways to magnify all the games the Cowboys lost, regardless of whether Romo played well or poorly (911 anniversay? Really?), and you find ways to downplay all the games they won where he played well. Either they weren't deep enough into the season, or his performance in those games was insignificant, or there wasn't some major sentiment behind the game.

It should be enough to acknowledge there were "big" games where he played big, and "big" games where he didn't. Same for other "less significant" games.

 

[DallasEast]

Wait I thought it was the team's wins and not Romo's, so which way is it? When the team wins it's all Romo and when it loses it's the team LOL you guys are just as bad as the haters. Please also list how many of these great 4th quarter comebacks came against teams with winning records as I recall Jason Garrett is something like 4-19 against those teams so it couldn't have been many.

I know I will regret this but I must ask why is that necessary?

Please bear with me...

A quick browse of John Elway's and Joe Montana's Pro Football Hall of Fame bios includes the entries of: "Elway’s record 47 fourth quarter game-winning or game-tying drives are legendary" and "Montana directed his teams to 31 fourth quarter come-from-behind wins during his illustrious career".

Neither entry says anything about wins over plus .500 teams. Why should they?

My apologies for taking another Romo bashfest off its already off-beaten path but wouldn't your self-serving criteria to criticize Romo's fourth quarter comebacks equally apply to all quarterbacks assigned the same stat?

 

[DallasEast]

This thread is like watching a beloved family pet die, then get buried in a bizarro pet cemetery where it comes back to life and then walks into your living room all zombified only to poop on your rug before chewing it's own tail off.

Funny that you mention zombies. I'm a The Walking Dead fan. Looking back at the (usual) criticism of Tony Romo in this thread, I would swear The Governor had written many of the posts.

 

[Denim Chicken]

The 2 wins vs Philly weren't in come from behind clutch situations. The Cowboys dominated them in both games we're talking about him being clutch in big games. The win over the Vikings happened in week 9 and didn't have the Cowboys season riding on it try reading what the discussion is about. The Washington game was in week 16 vs a 3 win team that had packed it in for the season. I mentioned Romo has had many clutch performances but not in elimination/playoff games.

I cant keep up with all the angles Romo haters use.

So, the Philly games, not clutch performances, but they were win or go home--still doesn't count.

The Washington game (elimination) doesn't count bc they were a bad team.

The Vikes game--at the time it was pretty much the season riding on the game bc of where we were in the standings--doesn't count.

San Fran game in earlier season--doesn't count bc it was week 5.

The fact that Romo is a top of 4Q comebacks--doesn't matter

All the stats Percy provided--empty stats or inflated, meaningless, etc...

Think I got it. If we lose it counts, if we win there is some excuse why is doesn't. Thanks.

 

[jnday]

I give more credit to the Jets player on that fumble than blame to Romo. He puched that thing out just a fraction of a second before Romo's knee would have been down.

The interception was the killer.

 

[Denim Chicken]

The interception was the killer.

That int was a clever trap by Revis. But, ya it sucked.

 

[KJJ]

So then, what do you consider clutch? Those were both high magnitude games at the end of the season, one of them being a "win or go home" game. Yes, they dominated them, in no small part because he was "clutch" the entire game. Clutch doesn't just happen at the end of the game. Would it have been better if he had been average or poor for most of the game, then led one great drive to win it? What would be considered the better performance?

I see your point about people increasing the magnitude of Romo's winning performances and downplaying the losing ones, but honestly, you're doing the same thing, only from the opposite direction. You find ways to magnify all the games the Cowboys lost, regardless of whether Romo played well or poorly (911 anniversay? Really?), and you find ways to downplay all the games they won where he played well. Either they weren't deep enough into the season, or his performance in those games was insignificant, or there wasn't some major sentiment behind the game.

It should be enough to acknowledge there were "big" games where he played big, and "big" games where he didn't. Same for other "less significant" games.

No question both wins over Philly in week 17 and the playoffs of the 09 season were high magnitude games but Romo didn't have to perform anything special at the end to pull those games out. Those were 2 easy wins in which the Cowboys never trailed and outscored Philly 58-14. Romo was able to manage both games and played very well with a TD to turnover ratio of 4-1. Had Romo been average to poor in both games but found a way to win both in the closing moments he probably would have received more praise for hanging in and getting it done when both games were on the line. Joe Montana didn't play that great for most of the game vs the Cowboys in the 81 title game.

He committed 3 turnovers but in the end he was brilliant marching SF down the field 90 yards in the closing minutes to pull the game out. To be known as "clutch" a QB has to come through in a critical situations in big games. They have to be able to make that one great throw in the most critical moment or be able to lead their team down the field on a last ditch championship drive with the clock running down. That's what I consider "clutch." I don't try to downplay all the games Romo has won but some games are more important than others and in the most critical games of his career his W/L record is 1-6 and his stats in those games don't even come close to his stats in the less critical games..

 

[jnday]

I cant keep up with all the angles Romo haters use.

So, the Philly games, not clutch performances, but they were win or go home--still doesn't count.

The Washington game (elimination) doesn't count bc they were a bad team.

The Vikes game--at the time it was pretty much the season riding on the game bc of where we were in the standings--doesn't count.

San Fran game in earlier season--doesn't count bc it was week 5.

The fact that Romo is a top of 4Q comebacks--doesn't matter

All the stats Percy provided--empty stats or inflated, meaningless, etc...

Think I got it. If we lose it counts, if we win there is some excuse why is doesn't. Thanks.

You will be reminded of the choke jobs this season. There will be a couple. It always is.

 

[Denim Chicken]

You will be reminded of the choke jobs this season. There will be a couple. It always is.

Ok, I'll be sure to to look out for them.

 

[WhizKid]

I cant keep up with all the angles Romo haters use.

So, the Philly games, not clutch performances, but they were win or go home--still doesn't count.

The Washington game (elimination) doesn't count bc they were a bad team.

The Vikes game--at the time it was pretty much the season riding on the game bc of where we were in the standings--doesn't count.

San Fran game in earlier season--doesn't count bc it was week 5.

The fact that Romo is a top of 4Q comebacks--doesn't matter

All the stats Percy provided--empty stats or inflated, meaningless, etc...

Think I got it. If we lose it counts, if we win there is some excuse why is doesn't. Thanks.

Zone arguing is very similar to this...

 

[KJJ]

I cant keep up with all the angles Romo haters use.

So, the Philly games, not clutch performances, but they were win or go home--still doesn't count.

The Washington game (elimination) doesn't count bc they were a bad team.

The Vikes game--at the time it was pretty much the season riding on the game bc of where we were in the standings--doesn't count.

San Fran game in earlier season--doesn't count bc it was week 5.

The fact that Romo is a top of 4Q comebacks--doesn't matter

All the stats Percy provided--empty stats or inflated, meaningless, etc...

Think I got it. If we lose it counts, if we win there is some excuse why is doesn't. Thanks.

You can't keep up because you don't know who his real haters are. The Philly games count as big wins not "clutch" performances which is what we're currently discussing. The Washington game in week 16 last season was not an "elimination game." An "elimination game" is where BOTH teams are facing elimination with the winner advancing and the loser staying home. The SF game in 2011 was in week 2 not in week 5. It was a nice win vs a SF team that had yet to arrive but the game didn't have a great impact on either teams season.

The Cowboys got worse as the 2011 season went on while SF got better. Percy's stats are designed so that Romo can be compared favorably with a number of championship winning QB's. If Romo never wins another playoff game or even makes the playoffs again percy will be able to continue comparing Romo statistically with all these great QB's as long as he maintains his production during the regular season.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

You will be reminded of the choke jobs this season. There will be a couple. It always is.

By the magical definitions you seem to fabricate with every passing moment, I predict there will be about 8 of them.

 

[Picksix]

No question both wins over Philly in week 17 and the playoffs of the 09 season were high magnitude games but Romo didn't have to perform anything special at the end to pull those games out. Those were 2 easy wins in which the Cowboys never trailed and outscored Philly 58-14. Romo was able to manage both games and played very well with a TD to turnover ratio of 4-1. Had Romo been average to poor in both games but found a way to win both in the closing moments he probably would have received more praise for hanging in and getting it done when both games were on the line. Joe Montana didn't play that great for most of the game vs the Cowboys in the 81 title game.

He committed 3 turnovers but in the end he was brilliant marching SF down the field 90 yards in the closing minutes to pull the game out. To be known as "clutch" a QB has to come through in a critical situations in big games. They have to be able to make that one great throw in the most critical moment or be able to lead their team down the field on a last ditch championship drive with the clock running down. That's what I consider "clutch." I don't try to downplay all the games Romo has won but some games are more important than others and in the most critical games of his career his W/L record is 1-6 and his stats in those games don't even come close to his stats in the less critical games..

Well, I respect your points, but like you said, it's what you consider clutch. Fair enough. As for the whole "elimination game" thing, I get that, too. One thing I don't like, however, is the number of games that get diminished, that weren't technically elimination games, but really were for all intents and purposes. The Commanders game for one. Yeah, I know, they weren't that good, and they had a backup QB, but they didn't play like a team that was packing it in. All I saw in that game was the Skins trying to knock out the Cowboys. Plus, Romo led that drive while playing on basically one leg. Either way you look at it, that was a clutch performance. We lose that game, we're basically done. Same with the Bengals game in 2012, and the Saints game in 2009, and yes, the SF game in 2011 (even though it was only week 2). All on the road, against playoff teams, two of which Romo had to lead multiple drives at the end of the game. We lose to the Saints or the Bengals, we were basically done, and Romo came up big in both of those games, against formidable obstacles. The Saints were undefeated, playing at home on a Saturday night nationally televised game, when the whole world had basically given up on the Cowboys. In the Bengals game, that was right after the whole Josh Brent thing.

So yes, he's had his moments in big games where he's been poor, and moments in big games where he's been great.

 

[jnday]

By the magical definitions you seem to fabricate with every passing moment, I predict there will be about 8 of them.

There is usually one of two a year.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Think I got it. If we lose it counts, if we win there is some excuse why is doesn't. Thanks.

Looks like you got it all figured out good job! Now all you have to do is wait until we lose and you will be prepared for those "I told you so" threads.

 

[DanteEXT]

The interception was the killer.

The blocked punt for the TD was almost as bad. But yeah, the INT ended up being really bad because Revis was able to get the ball back into FG range. Less than a minute and no TO's, defense was put in no win spot. Unlike other late game TO's where the defense still had a chance to swing momentum back a bit.

 

[KJJ]

Well, I respect your points, but like you said, it's what you consider clutch. Fair enough. As for the whole "elimination game" thing, I get that, too. One thing I don't like, however, is the number of games that get diminished, that weren't technically elimination games, but really were for all intents and purposes. The Commanders game for one. Yeah, I know, they weren't that good, and they had a backup QB, but they didn't play like a team that was packing it in. All I saw in that game was the Skins trying to knock out the Cowboys. Plus, Romo led that drive while playing on basically one leg. Either way you look at it, that was a clutch performance. We lose that game, we're basically done. Same with the Bengals game in 2012, and the Saints game in 2009, and yes, the SF game in 2011 (even though it was only week 2). All on the road, against playoff teams, two of which Romo had to lead multiple drives at the end of the game. We lose to the Saints or the Bengals, we were basically done, and Romo came up big in both of those games, against formidable obstacles. The Saints were undefeated, playing at home on a Saturday night nationally televised game, when the whole world had basically given up on the Cowboys. In the Bengals game, that was right after the whole Josh Brent thing.

So yes, he's had his moments in big games where he's been poor, and moments in big games where he's been great.

I don't consider being "clutch" winning a game in a blowout. I doubt most consider that as being a "clutch" performance. A lot of games get diminished when you lose the one game that ends your season. The Pats won 18 games in 2007 but they got diminished due to their loss in the SB. If you look at the careers of most great QB's their legacy's were built off of only a few games but they were HUGE games in which they came up big. Joe Namath would have been just another good QB had it not been for his guarantee and huge win over the Colts in the SB. That one win made his career and is the only game he or anyone else ever talks about. There's a handful of games that are associated with Staubach, Bradshaw, Akiman and Montana that everyone remembers because they were huge games that had a great impact on their careers. They're viewed by how they performed in those games.

Take away Montana's 4 SB performances and his clutch 90 yard drive in the 81 NFC title game and where would that have left his career? His career was built off of 5 big games. Had Staubach's Hail Mary back in 1975 happened in week 4 of the regular season that year no one would remember it but it happened in a playoff game. If Romo had average statistical regular seasons but came up big in elimination/playoff games he wouldn't carry the stigma he does today. Take golf for example it's not how many tournaments a golfer wins that makes them a great player it's the number of MAJOR tournaments they win that makes them great. It's the clutch putts and major wins that put Tiger Woods on the map.

 

[5Stars]

The Critic Handbook

Section 2: Quarterbacks

A. Quarterbacks shall be judged by their performance. Performance shall be exulted for all touchdowns and non-turnovers committed in games resulting in a victory only. Performance shall be devalued for each interception, incompletion, fumble, or sack committed. Performance shall be summarily judged as abysmal for games resulting in defeat regardless of circumstance.

B. Non-quarterback performance shall not alter criticism mandated by paragraph A. Non quarterback performance shall include, but not limited to: missed blocks; dropped, missed, or tipped passes by receivers; fumbles committed by offensive teammates; non-sustained blocks; changed football trajectories committed by receivers, tight ends, running backs, or helmets of offensive linemen; drive-changing penalties committed by offensive or defensive teammates; dropped or missed interceptions by defensive players; erroneous official decisions resulting in drive-changing penalties; opposing defensive coaching and team effort; special teams miscues; inopportune bounces of the ball; or offensive, defensive, or special teams coaching mismanagement.

C. Anything not stated in paragraph B.

The blind will never read this. Not enough tunnel vision hate in those rules. Plus, what you describe is football...what they describe is Romo only. smh

 

[DFWJC]

That int was a clever trap by Revis. But, ya it sucked.

No doubt.
Certainly not a choke though. Think how comical it sounds to think that he would be dropping back to pass and thinking "wow, this is a 9-11 anniversary game so it's way bigger than most games" even though he'd already shredded that Jets defense all game.

In fact, he may have played better vs the Jets that game than any other QB did...especially in NY. Yet that one play vs the best CB in football somehow means he was choking.

It's just so ludicrous.

I have news for people...even the very best players make critical mistakes at times.