Mythbusting Tony Romo....Yeah another stupid Romo thread

[WhizKid]

Both sides are passionate about their positions on the topic. It is the most talked about aspect of the Cowboys since the end of the 2012 season. You've got to expect heated emotions from each side. Romo had a horrible game in the Washington game. You can definitely argue that he was responsible for the loss. Those picks were heart breaking and ended the season. But those of us who believe in Romo see that his performance is a direct result of the rest of the team's play. He had to try and do too much to make up for deficiencies in the rest of the team. It was the same the whole season. The fact that his stats are as good as they were is a testament to his leadership and physical skills. It takes a team to win a championship. Not just a good QB.

Exactly. That's what I said un my post above. So many things are responsible, including the fact that the Commanders made a good play, broke a way to the qb and the defender made a good play on the ball. It happens, sometimes the defense beats you.

 

[jobberone]

Both sides are passionate about their positions on the topic. It is the most talked about aspect of the Cowboys since the end of the 2012 season. You've got to expect heated emotions from each side. Romo had a horrible game in the Washington game. You can definitely argue that he was responsible for the loss. Those picks were heart breaking and ended the season. But those of us who believe in Romo see that his performance is a direct result of the rest of the team's play. He had to try and do too much to make up for deficiencies in the rest of the team. It was the same the whole season. The fact that his stats are as good as they were is a testament to his leadership and physical skills. It takes a team to win a championship. Not just a good QB.

I agree both sides are passionate. I'll take some heat for putting the title up there without a lot of forethought. The topic of the thread was not just Romo but how they were using some stats in an interesting way to review QBs and teams. Romo absolutely sucked on that play to basically end th Wash game. There's no way to defend that play. I don't remember the down but unless it was 4th down then you either throw the ball away or whatever. You don't float it up there to get intercepted. The problem is people don't see that Romo is having to carry the team and that is born out by the stats. And every QB has those plays. My problem with Romo is he doesn't protect the ball and that was an excellent example of how NOT to play QB in the NFL. Most of us see the positives and the negatives in his play. The problem others are having is you cannot say anything about Romo or Jerry or Garrett without the chorus of negative nannies who only see one side of the equation. It's all black and white or all or nothing thinking for them or perhaps worse.

My problem as a moderator is there has to be a way for people to bring up a topic and not have it derailed so frequently that it's useless to even try. Sorry got to get back to the family gathering. I'm 12 hours ahead of the East coast. Cheers.

 

[DanteEXT]

And yet how many times had the team come back in that game because of the guy you worship?

And how did any hope end for the team?

It was still the interception on an ill-advised throw.

The game was what it was because of the entire team. However, all hope faded when Romo threw that pick.

The ENTIRE TEAM lost.

All hope faded when Hatcher smacked RG3 in the head on a third down incompletion. Without that, the 'skins kick a FG (maybe miss, maybe not) and Dallas gets the ball with about 2:30 left to play.

 

[burmafrd]

I agree both sides are passionate. I'll take some heat for putting the title up there without a lot of forethought. The topic of the thread was not just Romo but how they were using some stats in an interesting way to review QBs and teams. Romo absolutely sucked on that play to basically end th Wash game. There's no way to defend that play. I don't remember the down but unless it was 4th down then you either throw the ball away or whatever. You don't float it up there to get intercepted. The problem is people don't see that Romo is having to carry the team and that is born out by the stats. And every QB has those plays. My problem with Romo is he doesn't protect the ball and that was an excellent example of how NOT to play QB in the NFL. Most of us see the positives and the negatives in his play. The problem others are having is you cannot say anything about Romo or Jerry or Garrett without the chorus of negative nannies who only see one side of the equation. It's all black and white or all or nothing thinking for them or perhaps worse.

My problem as a moderator is there has to be a way for people to bring up a topic and not have it derailed so frequently that it's useless to even try. Sorry got to get back to the family gathering. I'm 12 hours ahead of the East coast. Cheers.

why did Romo believe he had to make a play in that position? And not take a sack, etc?

 

[jobberone]

why did Romo believe he had to make a play in that position? And not take a sack, etc?

You'd have to ask him. The very thing that allows him to make something out of nothing is also the cause of his trying to do too much. Tony has to find a way to be Tony while getting rid of the other Tony. It was a stupid play on his part.

 

[Hostile]

http://thelandryhat.com/2013/06/22/the-dallas-cowboys-never-ending-tony-romo-debate/

Dallas Cowboys Quarterback Tony Romo is a lightning rod topic. Is he an elite QB? Is he a choker? What exactly is an elite QB? What exactly is a choker? Everyone has an opinion on Tony Romo, and they usually range somewhere between those two extreme views of him. All across the Internet, on Dallas Cowboys forums the debate rages on. In football studios across America the debate rages on. The biggest problem with the debate in my eyes is a lack of perspective.

Let’s face it, very few men ever line up behind Center in the NFL and face the pressure that these guys do, while they are asked to make split second decisions that affect success, or failure, of almost every single play. In other words, we don’t have that perspective. Does that mean no one except a former NFL QB can give us an opinion on Tony Romo? Don’t be silly, it’s a free country, and opinions are welcome. Just remember that they are like armpits; everyone has a couple and some of them stink.

The truth of the matter is, there are really only 51 other men in History who really know the obstacles Tony Romo faces as the QB of America’s Team. In the History of the franchise only 52 men, counting Tony, have ever been on the Cowboys roster as a QB. Not all of them played, and sadly some of them, like Dandy Don Meredith, have passed on. There are three men who have played the position and had some definite measures of success for the Cowboys, and know the pressure that is on Tony Romo. I am of course speaking about Roger Staubach, Danny White, and Troy Aikman.

Click the link if you want to read the comments by Danny, Troy, and Roger.

 

[Califan007]

why did Romo believe he had to make a play in that position? And not take a sack, etc?

Because he's not a very good game manager. He's a great playmaking QB with mediocre game managing skills.

 

[CoCo]

Sure, I understand these are my opinions and you disagree. That is fine, if my opinion bothers you too much you can always put me on ignore.

It doesn't bother me at all for others to have differing opinions. I've only put one poster on ignore ever and frankly their opinions probably mirrored my own - just couldn't stand their delivery.

It doesn't bother me what your opinion of Romo is nor have I set out to try to change it. My resistance is about being misrepresented, or having my argument misrepresented.

It's simple. I have ONLY pointed to stats in defense of Romo. Be it "the company he keeps", QB rating, 4th Qtr QB rating, career ratings etc. That information is completely objective. Statistically one could point to "no SB wins" or whatever his "win or go home record" is as objective evidence of his shortcomings. I'd have no dispute with the latter even though I think its less compelling than the larger pool of stats.

What I find disingenuous are the statements that I or others are "twisting" or "bending over backwards" to make a point that otherwise isn't valid. Truth is those stats are facts pure and simple. They are no less factual than Romo's zero SB wins or his record in win or go home games. They are in no way twisted or manipulated. And that is not opinion, it's fact.

Whatever conclusion one draws from those facts is Opinion - a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

We have differing opinions. Fine. But when you imply that the facts upon which mine is based are somehow twisted you frankly appear desperate to prop up your own subjectivity by trying to discredit my objectivity.

 

[ufcrules1]

Because he's not a very good game manager. He's a great playmaking QB with mediocre game managing skills.

I would have to agree with this opinion from watching him the last 8 years. For those who don't remember the last interception in the Washington game.. it was 1st down with over 3 minutes to go, 3 timeouts, and only down by 3 when Romo flaked. Being that it was first down makes the whole situation even worse. If he would have just thrown the ball at the feet of the defender then he would have had a few more chances and given the team an opportunity to win. The thing that really bugs me is Romo played awesome football in the 2 games leading up the Commanders game throwing for 750 yards 6 td's and had well over a 100 QBR. Then had 3 interception game with a 55 QBR vs the 30th ranked passing defense in the league. I just don't get that.

 

[percyhoward]

I'm sorry but simply saying they had an easy schedule and that being the reason they went from 2-14 to 11-5 is just off.

Read the post again: "Switch the two teams' schedules, and the Cowboys might have gone to the playoffs instead of the Colts." The Colts' record in previous seasons has nothing to do with that.

Luck was why that team went 11-5.

He really wasn't, if you're interested in knowing. In 2012, there were 26 QB with passer ratings of 76.5 or better. If a 76.5 rating were good enough to win 11 games, then 26 teams would have won 11 games last year. So Luck's 76.5 rating indicates that a lot more went into making that record than just the performance of the QB.

For example, although Luck threw for 23 TD and 4374 yards, he also turned the ball over 23 times. His team had the 29th ranked defense in yards per drive, so in order for the Colts to win 11 games, it meant the Colts' defense had to be strong in the red zone. Sure enough, they were 12th in red zone TD % allowed. That's the defense helping out the QB.

Also, if your defense is giving up that many yards, it means you've got to make sure your opponent starts drives on their end of the field. Your punts have to be from around midfield, and your special teams has got to be good at preventing long returns. Bingo. Colts' opponents were 30th in starting field position. That's some huge help for your defense.

The Colts also had 6 return TD (or non-offensive TD), and two of those came in games in which Luck had ratings of 76.5 and 50.6, so that's defense and special teams bailing out the QB in a big way.

All of this came against one of the league's easiest schedules.

Like I said, give Luck credit for being so good late in close games, but not for the 11-5 record. That's the team and the schedule.

 

[03EBZ06]

I would have to agree with this opinion from watching him the last 8 years.

Not surprised at all that you would agree with a Commander fan

 

[Califan007]

I would have to agree with this opinion from watching him the last 8 years. For those who don't remember the last interception in the Washington game.. it was 1st down with over 3 minutes to go, 3 timeouts, and only down by 3 when Romo flaked. Being that it was first down makes the whole situation even worse. If he would have just thrown the ball at the feet of the defender then he would have had a few more chances and given the team an opportunity to win. The thing that really bugs me is Romo played awesome football in the 2 games leading up the Commanders game throwing for 750 yards 6 td's and had well over a 100 QBR. Then had 3 interception game with a 55 QBR vs the 30th ranked passing defense in the league. I just don't get that.

It's why Romo is so good at coming back from huge deficits. That's when you need playmakers the most...

A game manager QB would have taken the sack on that play while trying feebly to run from the defender. Because in a game manager's mind, the only goal in that situation (3 minutes to go, etc) is to get a first down. A sack won't keep you from getting a first down on the drive, it'll just delay it. I think too many times Romo's mentality is "I gotta make a play here...I gotta make a play here..."

 

[ufcrules1]

It's why Romo is so good at coming back from huge deficits. That's when you need playmakers the most...

A game manager QB would have taken the sack on that play while trying feebly to run from the defender. Because in a game manager's mind, the only goal in that situation (3 minutes to go, etc) is to get a first down. A sack won't keep you from getting a first down on the drive, it'll just delay it. I think too many times Romo's mentality is "I gotta make a play here...I gotta make a play here..."

The correct move there wouldn't have been to taken the sack, although worst case he could have. The correct decision would be to throw at the defenders feet. You see Peyton, Brady, Brees, etc do it all the time. That stops the clock, and it would now be 2nd and 10 instead of practically game over.

 

[jobberone]

The correct move there wouldn't have been to taken the sack, although worst case he could have. The correct decision would be to throw at the defenders feet. You see Peyton, Brady, Brees, etc do it all the time. That stops the clock, and it would now be 2nd and 10 instead of practically game over.

This or throw the ball over the receivers head OOB and past the LOS.

 

[DanteEXT]

The correct move there wouldn't have been to taken the sack, although worst case he could have. The correct decision would be to throw at the defenders feet. You see Peyton, Brady, Brees, etc do it all the time. That stops the clock, and it would now be 2nd and 10 instead of practically game over.

Having watched that play numerous times I am trying very hard to figure out how he could have thrown "at the defenders feet" in that situation. Tyron was between Romo and the guy who intercepted the pass. Seems that would have been more of lobbed it "at the defenders feet" which itself could end in disaster. If you meant the blitzer who was nearly on top of Romo, then I am more confused since I believe that would be grounding and now 2nd and 16 or 17.

 

[ufcrules1]

Having watched that play numerous times I am trying very hard to figure out how he could have thrown "at the defenders feet" in that situation. Tyron was between Romo and the guy who intercepted the pass. Seems that would have been more of lobbed it "at the defenders feet" which itself could end in disaster. If you meant the blitzer who was nearly on top of Romo, then I am more confused since I believe that would be grounding and now 2nd and 16 or 17.

Yes, you are correct.. I meant to say throw it at the running backs feet. The problem was he had already made up his mind that if he got pressure he was just going to throw the ball to Murray as his outlet, he never even saw the defender. You have to be smarter than that with the division and the playoffs on the line... and it ONLY being first down. He just let the big stage get to him which is what he did all night.

 

[ufcrules1]

This or throw the ball over the receivers head OOB and past the LOS.

This was an option too.. although I'm not sure if he had enough time to wind up to get it that far.

 

[CoCo]

The "past the line of scrimmage" requirement I believe is an offset to the proximity of a receiver. But if its not going to be in the proximity of a receiver the QB also has to be outside the tackle box.

But I don't think Romo got burned by trying to force a pass to a receiver not open. I think he got fooled into not seeing the defender peel off into coverage - rather thinking he'd continue to rush the passer. But admittedly I am doing this from memory having not seen the play recently.

 

[ufcrules1]

Overall I liked the article. It tries to cut down on variables but at the same time it's, of course, not a perfect science-- although nothing is.

For instance, one game that comes to mind is 2007 vs Buffalo. Romo had an awful game, but his team wasn't the reason the Cowboys were able to crawl out of that hole. He got a lot of help from the special teams to recover the onside kick, but that game was salvaged by Romo, despite the bad passer rating just under 50 (IIRC).

A 66.7 passer rating is a pretty decent indicator of poor play, but sometimes the bad rating can be skewed by play earlier in the game or later. With poor play at the beginning of the game but a strong finish by a QB, one could assign the victory to the quarterback-- like the buffalo game . Strong play at the beginning, and poor play toward the end would result in the opposite-- blame for the QB (like the DET game, although Romo's rating was only in the 80s that game).

Simply put, I enjoyed this article, but it's only a lukewarm indicator of 'getting help'.

Great input, this is yet another example of how statistics don't show the full story and can't be relied on as the end all be all of how good a player is or isn't.

 

[DanteEXT]

Yes, you are correct.. I meant to say throw it at the running backs feet. The problem was he had already made up his mind that if he got pressure he was just going to throw the ball to Murray as his outlet, he never even saw the defender. You have to be smarter than that with the division and the playoffs on the line... and it ONLY being first down. He just let the big stage get to him which is what he did all night.

Agreed that he didn't see the defender ( I can somewhat understand not seeing the defender in that split second with the line of site being at least partially obscured by 300+ pounds, but he still has to be better than that). And he threw off his back foot drifting backwards. Memory says it was also a little short. Too bad he didn't get more on the pass.... it may have been a spectacular play. Murray had Patrick Crayton sized opening in the field in front of him to do his thing .

ahhh.... if only....