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

[rcaldw]

I don't think it has anything to do with self doubt. Doubt leads to hesitation. Romo did not hesitate to throw the outlet pass to Murray in the last game. He made a bad decision to throw off his back foot while drfiting backwards due to the pressure. If anything, I would call that overconfidence he could get it out there and make a play.

I don't think it is doubt either. I would almost describe it as panic, but I don't think that is the right word. Too much adrenaline, or so much emotion that you don't play within yourself, you don't play with CALM. I think that is the right description for my OPINION. To me, when Aikman or Staubach were at their best, it was like the game slowed down for them in those crunch moments. I think Romo is very much like Favre. Favre would get so hyped up that he (for his entire career) could be counted on for one of those mind numbing moments in almost every big game.

 

[ufcrules1]

I don't think it is doubt either. I would almost describe it as panic, but I don't think that is the right word. Too much adrenaline, or so much emotion that you don't play within yourself, you don't play with CALM. I think that is the right description for my OPINION. To me, when Aikman or Staubach were at their best, it was like the game slowed down for them in those crunch moments. I think Romo is very much like Favre. Favre would get so hyped up that he (for his entire career) could be counted on for one of those mind numbing moments in almost every big game.

Yeah, hard to describe what is happening but I remember in the Washington game it seemed like he was just off. There were times when he had plenty of time to throw and he would still rush and make a bad throw. It's like he gets over excited or something. I'm not sure if nervous is the right word.

 

[ufcrules1]

I don't think it has anything to do with self doubt. Doubt leads to hesitation. Romo did not hesitate to throw the outlet pass to Murray in the last game. He made a bad decision to throw off his back foot while drfiting backwards due to the pressure. If anything, I would call that overconfidence he could get it out there and make a play.

I would agree with that. It was like he already made up his mind that if he got pressure that Murray was going to be his outlet. I just think he made the throw without thinking at all. You have to control your emotions and think clearly in situations like that. if you are being that rushed, best move is to throw the ball away.. unless you KNOW it is a safe throw.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I don't think it has anything to do with self doubt. Doubt leads to hesitation. Romo did not hesitate to throw the outlet pass to Murray in the last game. He made a bad decision to throw off his back foot while drfiting backwards due to the pressure. If anything, I would call that overconfidence he could get it out there and make a play.

Doubts create the climate for making bad decisions.

 

[Rockport]

I'm not going to hurl insults. I'm just saying that I wish you and all the supporters of Romo, and quite frankly all players, all coaches, and administration, would simply not make excuses for these people . After nearly 18 years of failure, I don't want to hear it.

If you don't want to hear it then don't read Romo threads. Either that or block me because I'm going to continue to support him because he's an excellent QB and one we are extremely lucky to have.

 

[Hostile]

There is a huge difference between reasons and excuses. I don't believe when talking about football players who have not won a Championship that people are giving excuses. No running game is a reason. No O-line is a reason. No WRs is a reason. No Defense capable of holding a lead is a reason.

We don't talk about those types of things with a Chad Hutchinson or a Quincy Carter. There is a reason for that, not an excuse for it. They aren't good enough to be in those types of discussions. We don't talk about Brad Johnson or Trent Dilfer as among the best QBs of their generation. We talk about them as QBs who were on great teams and got carried with that team to a Championship.

It isn't an excuse to mention things haven't been good enough for Tony Romo to win a Championship. We wouldn't even be talking about it if he were a ham and egger like Steve Pelleur. There is a reason why Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Jim Kelly, Fran Tarkenton, and Warren Moon are mentioned as great QBs. Because they were. They didn't have teams around them to win Championships. That isn't an excuse, it's a reason. As great as the Air Coryell Offenses were their Defenses were a liability. Quick, name Marino's Terrell Davis.

The point of that last challenge is that until Davis arrived John Elway (who might be the prototype mold for QBs) couldn't win it all. That isn't an excuse. it is a reason. It takes an entire team effort. It always has. Anyone who thinks Joe Montana won 4 Super Bowls with so so talent is an idiot. How any Cowboys fan can know the caliber of the players we had on O-line in the 1970's and especially the 1990's, and not think we don't have the O-line in front of Tony to win it all is beyond me.

That isn't an excuse for Tony. Take away Mark Tuinei, our least decorated O-Lineman from the 1990's and put Phil Pozderak there and if you believe we'd still win 3 Super Bowls you're an idiot. In other words, Mark Tuinei is a reason why we won three of them.

Archie Manning was a great QB. One of the absolute best of the 1970s. When the Steelers won Super Bowl XIII and XIV they beat the Houston Oilers in the AFC Championship both years to advance to that game. I still remember Bum Phillips telling the Oilers fans, "Last year we knocked on the door. This year, we banged on it. Next year, we're going kick the son of a [gun] in." If Archie Manning had been the Oilers QB those two years the Steelers don't win those 2 games and go on to the Super Bowl. He was that good.

We're having this conversation because Romo is good. He's not some schlep who is costing us chances. We have a chance because he is good. If the pieces around him were better he might be good enough to win for us. But to this point those pieces have only been good enough in 2007, and I'm sorry but we faced the Giants with 2 hobbled WRs, their CBs realized this, played man up and told Coughlin to send the dogs. He did, and they got there.

That isn't an excuse, it's a reason. Just my opinion.

 

[WhizKid]

There is a huge difference between reasons and excuses. I don't believe when talking about football players who have not won a Championship that people are giving excuses. No running game is a reason. No O-line is a reason. No WRs is a reason. No Defense capable of holding a lead is a reason.

We don't talk about those types of things with a Chad Hutchinson or a Quincy Carter. There is a reason for that, not an excuse for it. They aren't good enough to be in those types of discussions. We don't talk about Brad Johnson or Trent Dilfer as among the best QBs of their generation. We talk about them as QBs who were on great teams and got carried with that team to a Championship.

It isn't an excuse to mention things haven't been good enough for Tony Romo to win a Championship. We wouldn't even be talking about it if he were a ham and egger like Steve Pelleur. There is a reason why Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Jim Kelly, Fran Tarkenton, and Warren Moon are mentioned as great QBs. Because they were. They didn't have teams around them to win Championships. That isn't an excuse, it's a reason. As great as the Air Coryell Offenses were their Defenses were a liability. Quick, name Marino's Terrell Davis.

The point of that last challenge is that until Davis arrived John Elway (who might be the prototype mold for QBs) couldn't win it all. That isn't an excuse. it is a reason. It takes an entire team effort. It always has. Anyone who thinks Joe Montana won 4 Super Bowls with so so talent is an idiot. How any Cowboys fan can know the caliber of the players we had on O-line in the 1970's and especially the 1990's, and not think we don't have the O-line in front of Tony to win it all is beyond me.

That isn't an excuse for Tony. Take away Mark Tuinei, our least decorated O-Lineman from the 1990's and put Phil Pozderak there and if you believe we'd still win 3 Super Bowls you're an idiot. In other words, Mark Tuinei is a reason why we won three of them.

Archie Manning was a great QB. One of the absolute best of the 1970s. When the Steelers won Super Bowl XIII and XIV they beat the Houston Oilers in the AFC Championship both years to advance to that game. I still remember Bum Phillips telling the Oilers fans, "Last year we knocked on the door. This year, we banged on it. Next year, we're going kick the son of a ***** in." If Archie Manning had been the Oilers QB those two years the Steelers don't win those 2 games and go on to the Super Bowl. He was that good.

We're having this conversation because Romo is good. He's not some schlep who is costing us chances. We have a chance because he is good. If the pieces around him were better he might be good enough to win for us. But to this point those pieces have only been good enough in 2007, and I'm sorry but we faced the Giants with 2 hobbled WRs, their CBs realized this, played man up and told Coughlin to send the dogs. He did, and they got there.

That isn't an excuse, it's a reason. Just my opinion.

I tried to articulate this on page 5. Great post sir.

 

[Hostile]

You question why this thread keeps coming up? Why do the "pro-romo" crowd feel a necessity to prove the doubters wrong? I think it goes further than proving the doubters wrong. I think it more entails finding other problems with the team so that we could discuss how to fix those. Clearly Romo is going no where, so why waste the time discussing how bad he is? It's complaining just to complain and that gets so annoying. The problem is whenever people do find a different way to interpret the data presented and the season(s) of how they were compiled, they immediately get shot down as "twisted numbers" "skewed data" "numbers that aren't important" because they don't have a W-L column next to them, which itself is a very empty statistic left for everybody to interpret any way they wish. You bring up the defense, "so and so did it without a defense" You bring up the line "so and so did without the line or a running game" which leaves only one person to blame, at that is Romo. So although nobody is saying "it's all Romo's fault" the way some people encounter every thread that attempts to spark a discussion that details other deficiencies on the team, is evidence that shows otherwise.

So my question is, why do the exact same culprits feel the need to go into every thread that attempts to spark a discussion outside of "Romo-sucks, not ah!" and make sure it becomes that? Are you trying to convince the others something that they don't claim? Just as you claim "I never stated it's all Romo's fault" nobody is claiming that none of it is Romo's fault. Also, when will give the Commanders credit for some good pressure up the middle and to get in position to get the pick in the end? That was a great play on their part!

The best thing here is to come to a clear understanding of where people are coming from. We're all fans. Nobody is more "real" than the next guy when it comes to being a fan, because quite simply unless you are getting some kind of compensation out of the organization, it's all unreal. But that is the point of being a fan.

I have always looked at football understanding that yes, QB is the most important position on the field, especially in today's game. But I also realize even then it is dependent on scheme played, division, level of competition during the season, but also competing organizations strength of schedules and division. For me, Romo does not need an All-Star team to win (as Lebron did). He needs either the offense to be ran efficiently or the defense to step up make plays throughout the season(not just week 17). By an efficient offense, I mean one that either has the correct personnel to run it correctly or a head coach to make the right in-game adjustments to make up for the lack of correct personnel. From my understanding, from every where I've read one of the key components to this offense is strong protection upfront. That has not happened, although it did improve as the season went on last year. This year I still don't feel enough has been done in this area, as I would have added at least one vet to help up front with the young lineman. With that being said, with the change of play-calling, I am hoping that could help offset that lack of experience and talent, along with the progression in skill from those we drafted last year, this year, and guys just making strides in their advancement like Ronald Leary. Given the right mindset and will to succeed, I don't see why these guys can't take that next step. The skills positions are fine, as I believe we are quite fortunate in this area, but it can be useless if we can't get the ball to them. So here is to hoping if it looks like struggle in the beginning for the offense and the line, Callahan could make the correct in-game adjustments to succeed. Oh yeah, and that whole run game thing.

If the line does not step-up and the adjustments are not happening that need to be, then the defense is going to have to make some serious strides this year. The last two years at 8-8 has been hard for all of us, but I am of the nature that had we had HALF of those injuries not happen, especially with Sean Lee and Carter, I personally feel that is the difference between an 8 and 10 win season. I'd like to think that Lee and Carter are such improvements over what they were replaced with last year, otherwise we are in more trouble than we thought. As far as this year goes, everything is still up in the air and we will not get a good look at how potentially effective it will be until training camp comes around. But given certain traits and abilities and performances in OTAs(Reed, Magee), I think the boys have done a good job adding some young depth with some play-making abilities (given in college). Couple this with the addition of Durant to play the SAM position, they should be good in this department, but we'll see. Safety is still up in the air for me. Church has the potential to do well, but we need a larger sample to judge, Matt Johnson is still an unknown but kind of rookie given the circumstance, plus he had some game in college. Wilcox wasn't my first choice but he has grown on me from some write-ups on him during OTAs and reading his scouting report. I'm actually excited to see how Jakar Hamilton performs in training camp, as he could be a hidden gem picked up as an UDFA. Safety is definitely the biggest question mark with a lot of potential, it's just matter of if it can turn kinetic. The line seemed a bit weird to me, but I am mostly okay with it given the DL coach who was hired in Marinelli. I have total faith in him helping the linemen succeed. Given the amount of moaning and groaning over coaches and their ability to motivate and have players follow them, we have the best at that position in the league and there is no doubt in my mind with Ware, Spencer, and Ratliff along with Marinelli's coaching, they could flourish in this defense. Then there is Kiffin. Struggled at USC, is held in high regard in the league for his 4-3 Under, and from what I read, runs a pretty simplistic approach on defense. I think given the simplicity, the vets we have, and most importantly good health, I think the defense is on their way to big things this year, which totally helps out the offense if they can create turnovers and even get in the redzone.

Lastly, we all want the team to succeed, and we will all root for them to do so. I don't think "Romo" errr....the Cowboys can't win, I just don't think all the pieces have been there for them, and the cards just have not fell their way. Here is to hoping the line steps up, or the defense gets GOOD.

Given the OP and where we are today going into the season, yes Romo flubbed it at times not only in the last game, but also earlier in the season, the surrounding parts are going to have to take a step forward and come to play with Romo, Dez, and Witten on Sundays.

Also, just for S**** and Giggles... hehehe And I am not saying he as good as Manning or better, just comparing the struggles they both faced and the adversity they both went through. Obviously the Colts eventually won, but if Manning does not win that one SB, that one year, does he remove himself from "Arguably" the best to toss it to just another QB??? I know EVERYBODY likes to argue it's the QB who is responsible for all wins and losses, but that does not make the argument valid. But given the coach he had, the line in front of him, I would say he let his team down more than Romo has at times, but I still believe PM is the better "classical" QB.


http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/meet-mr-october-peyton-manning/4517/
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/quarterback-weak-nfl-network/4530/
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Peyton Manning Syndrome
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=keown/050119

This one is familiar...lol
http://sportsmatter.blogspot.com/2005/11/here-comes-peyton-manning-face.html
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/pundits-enable-mannings-chokeaholicism/4606/

Manning's team won in their 8th season together.
This is Romo's 8th season. Maaaaaaaaaaybbbbbbbbeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. lol

Also, I did not proof this because, you know, I didn't want to. lol

Simply outstanding post.

 

[DFWJC]

There is a huge difference between reasons and excuses. I don't believe when talking about football players who have not won a Championship that people are giving excuses. No running game is a reason. No O-line is a reason. No WRs is a reason. No Defense capable of holding a lead is a reason.

We don't talk about those types of things with a Chad Hutchinson or a Quincy Carter. There is a reason for that, not an excuse for it. They aren't good enough to be in those types of discussions. We don't talk about Brad Johnson or Trent Dilfer as among the best QBs of their generation. We talk about them as QBs who were on great teams and got carried with that team to a Championship.

It isn't an excuse to mention things haven't been good enough for Tony Romo to win a Championship. We wouldn't even be talking about it if he were a ham and egger like Steve Pelleur. There is a reason why Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Jim Kelly, Fran Tarkenton, and Warren Moon are mentioned as great QBs. Because they were. They didn't have teams around them to win Championships. That isn't an excuse, it's a reason. As great as the Air Coryell Offenses were their Defenses were a liability. Quick, name Marino's Terrell Davis.

The point of that last challenge is that until Davis arrived John Elway (who might be the prototype mold for QBs) couldn't win it all. That isn't an excuse. it is a reason. It takes an entire team effort. It always has. Anyone who thinks Joe Montana won 4 Super Bowls with so so talent is an idiot. How any Cowboys fan can know the caliber of the players we had on O-line in the 1970's and especially the 1990's, and not think we don't have the O-line in front of Tony to win it all is beyond me.

That isn't an excuse for Tony. Take away Mark Tuinei, our least decorated O-Lineman from the 1990's and put Phil Pozderak there and if you believe we'd still win 3 Super Bowls you're an idiot. In other words, Mark Tuinei is a reason why we won three of them.

Archie Manning was a great QB. One of the absolute best of the 1970s. When the Steelers won Super Bowl XIII and XIV they beat the Houston Oilers in the AFC Championship both years to advance to that game. I still remember Bum Phillips telling the Oilers fans, "Last year we knocked on the door. This year, we banged on it. Next year, we're going kick the son of a [gun] in." If Archie Manning had been the Oilers QB those two years the Steelers don't win those 2 games and go on to the Super Bowl. He was that good.

We're having this conversation because Romo is good. He's not some schlep who is costing us chances. We have a chance because he is good. If the pieces around him were better he might be good enough to win for us. But to this point those pieces have only been good enough in 2007, and I'm sorry but we faced the Giants with 2 hobbled WRs, their CBs realized this, played man up and told Coughlin to send the dogs. He did, and they got there.

That isn't an excuse, it's a reason. Just my opinion.

Well said
Dead on

 

[percyhoward]

I think Romo is very much like Favre. Favre would get so hyped up that he (for his entire career) could be counted on for one of those mind numbing moments in almost every big game.

These were the Packers defensive rankings when they won their only Super Bowl with Favre:
Points allowed: 1st
Yards allowed: 1st
Def. passer rtg: 1st

These are the Cowboys' average defensive rankings during the Romo era:
Points allowed: 18th
Yards allowed: 14th
Def. passer rtg: 21st

Just a thought, while the focus on Romo continues.

 

[gbrittain]

These were the Packers defensive rankings when they won their only Super Bowl with Favre:
Points allowed: 1st
Yards allowed: 1st
Def. passer rtg: 1st

These are the Cowboys' average defensive rankings during the Romo era:
Points allowed: 18th
Yards allowed: 14th
Def. passer rtg: 21st

Just a thought, while the focus on Romo continues.

I always think that a legitimate debate about Romo should concentrate on scouting type report about him. I would still maintain he is an excellent QB but there would be room for debate.

The debate centered around Romo's lack of team success to me is laughable considering what he has worked with. While Cowboy fans are wishing so and so QB was our QB that so and so QB is thanking their lucky stars they have not had to win a championship with the supporting cast Romo has played with.

 

[rcaldw]

These were the Packers defensive rankings when they won their only Super Bowl with Favre:
Points allowed: 1st
Yards allowed: 1st
Def. passer rtg: 1st

These are the Cowboys' average defensive rankings during the Romo era:
Points allowed: 18th
Yards allowed: 14th
Def. passer rtg: 21st

Just a thought, while the focus on Romo continues.

I actually think you are making my point. My point is not that Romo is not good enough to win a championship. Good golly, if Trent Dilfer can win one Tony Romo sure can! But team championships without elite QB's are the exception, not the rule (at least until more modern times). I know what I am about to say is heresy for some (especially John Madden), but I don't think Favre was a great postseason player. He had some good performances, but I didn't think he was especially consistent in the postseason. So, I'm not surprised in the least to see that his only Super Bowl involved the best defense in football being on his side. They NEEDED TO BE, because Brett Favre was a turnover machine in many of those big games. I have already said, and I will say it again. I think we are blessed to have Tony. I think he is good and at times great. I don't think he has the calm about him that Staubach or Aikman had in the biggest moments. It is simply a personality difference. Whether you want to say he tries to do too much, or has a hard time settling down and playing within himself, I have seen him struggle in some of those situations. I do not at all dismiss the fact that he hasn't always had the best supporting cast. I agree with that. But I also believe there have been times that he had the better supporting cast and we lost.

I floated a theory a long time ago that I still think is a good one. I think the measure of a great QB is how many times, in big games, his team wins the ones they SHOULD WIN. I think that theory takes a whole lot into account. Does a QB shoot his own team in the rear end? Does he put them behind the eight ball with stupid decisions? Does he execute when the plays are there to be made? Does he take a superior situation and make the most of it?

The only playoff game I can think of that Aikman cost us the game when we had the better team was Arizona at home in the late 90's.

The Carolina game we were beat up and then Irvin went down. That Carolina team proved to be pretty good. (96)

The game in SF in 1994, Troy hurt us with an early interception, but that was a team implosion (Barry Switzer at the helm) when Irvin fumbled and so did Kevin Williams. But Aikman actually played one of his best games ever in that game.

So, you could argue Arizona, Carolina and 94 SF. But think about how many times in those games when we were the superior team his steady and consistent play left no room for mistakes on the other side? We DIDN'T HELP THEM. We MADE THEM beat us. The 1995 NFC Championship game is a prime example. Two great football teams. Back and forth all game long. Aikman doesn't make the mistakes. Favre makes some backbreakers. Cowboys win. That Packer team was no slouch. They won the Super Bowl the next year, beat SF in SF in 95 and some had them favored going into Dallas that year. Mike Holmgren did something very rare and came to the Cowboys locker room afterwards to congratulate Aikman.

I think Romo is plenty good. I am glad we have him. No one should misconstrue my comments. In all honesty I am mostly "talking out loud" as I think about it myself. It is an honest opinion. I think he lacks some calm. I might be wrong. But it is what I believe.

 

[Apollo Creed]

If Romo ever wins a Super Bowl I'm going to party for a week straight, then come back here and serve up a buffet of crow to these nit-wits that said he wasn't good enough.

He's been good enough since 2006, just been carrying too much weight. Never had a running game or a defense that can bail him out and the onus of winning is squarely on his shoulders.

And just like he got all the blame, he better get all the credit.

 

[big dog cowboy]

If Romo ever wins a Super Bowl I'm going to party for a week straight, then come back here and serve up a buffet of crow to these nit-wits that said he wasn't good enough.

He's been good enough since 2006, just been carrying too much weight. Never had a running game or a defense that can bail him out and the onus of winning is squarely on his shoulders.

And just like he got all the blame, he better get all the credit.

Right there with ya.

 

[ufcrules1]

If Romo ever wins a Super Bowl I'm going to party for a week straight, then come back here and serve up a buffet of crow to these nit-wits that said he wasn't good enough.

He's been good enough since 2006, just been carrying too much weight. Never had a running game or a defense that can bail him out and the onus of winning is squarely on his shoulders.

And just like he got all the blame, he better get all the credit.

If Trent Dilfer was good enough then so is Romo. The problem is it is highly unlikely that we will have a defense as good as the Ravens did any time soon.However, if we have an above average team, can Romo step up and lead them in the playoffs? Against Washington he was the weakest link on the whole team. Our team was not good enough that night for Romo to throw 3 interceptions. If Romo did his job that night we would have won the division and played at home the following week in the playoffs. Tony would have to go through the playoffs without having one of those major blow up games. If he can do that and our team is a good bit improved from last year, then we can certainly go very deep in the playoffs if not farther.

 

[rcaldw]

If Romo ever wins a Super Bowl I'm going to party for a week straight, then come back here and serve up a buffet of crow to these nit-wits that said he wasn't good enough.

He's been good enough since 2006, just been carrying too much weight. Never had a running game or a defense that can bail him out and the onus of winning is squarely on his shoulders.

And just like he got all the blame, he better get all the credit.

Well AC if you do you won't be talking to me. I have made clear that I think he is good enough. I don't think his defenders (and I am one of them) can explain all of the failures by blaming everyone else. Its the times when I believe he has just played down to the moment that I am trying to understand. And maybe as you say it is the pressure of trying to do too much.

 

[Apollo Creed]

Well AC if you do you won't be talking to me. I have made clear that I think he is good enough. I don't think his defenders (and I am one of them) can explain all of the failures by blaming everyone else. Its the times when I believe he has just played down to the moment that I am trying to understand. And maybe as you say it is the pressure of trying to do too much.

He's not perfect, neither is Brady, Manning, Brees, A-Rod, etc.

Romo's mistakes are magnified by the fact that his defense can't bail him out, he has no running game ergo no threat of play action, he's throwing the ball into tight windows, and his coach is asking him to drop back 40-60 times a game making his maragin for error greater than those other elite guys out there.

You're a level headed dude, I usually agree with you - I'm just speaking to the guys that refuse to acknowledge that Romo is an elite QB on an average team. They just utterly refuse to see this as a team sport.

 

[rcaldw]

He's not perfect, neither is Brady, Manning, Brees, A-Rod, etc.

Romo's mistakes are magnified by the fact that his defense can't bail him out, he has no running game ergo no threat of play action, he's throwing the ball into tight windows, and his coach is asking him to drop back 40-60 times a game making his maragin for error greater than those other elite guys out there.

You're a level headed dude, I usually agree with you - I'm just speaking to the guys that refuse to acknowledge that Romo is an elite QB on an average team. They just utterly refuse to see this as a team sport.

I agree with everything you say here.

 

[ufcrules1]

Well AC if you do you won't be talking to me. I have made clear that I think he is good enough. I don't think his defenders (and I am one of them) can explain all of the failures by blaming everyone else. Its the times when I believe he has just played down to the moment that I am trying to understand. And maybe as you say it is the pressure of trying to do too much.

Nice to see a Romo supporter who is honest enough with himself to see some of Romo's flaws and isn't scared to talk about them or make excuses for them. My fear is that even if the team is better, if Romo has a choke type game like he did against Washington, we are doomed. I can't personally explain Romo's play against Washington especially since he looked elite in the previous 2 games. Also, once you get deeper in the playoffs the intensity level is even higher and even if you have a good Oline, the opposing defense will still get through. How will Romo act in that situation? It appears to me in high pressure games is when we see Romo have some of his meltdowns.

 

[rcaldw]

Nice to see a Romo supporter who is honest enough with himself to see some of Romo's flaws and isn't scared to talk about them or make excuses for them. My fear is that even if the team is better, if Romo has a choke type game like he did against Washington, we are doomed. I can't personally explain Romo's play against Washington especially since he looked elite in the previous 2 games. Also, once you get deeper in the playoffs the intensity level is even higher and even if you have a good Oline, the opposing defense will still get through. How will Romo act in that situation? It appears to me in high pressure games is when we see Romo have some of his meltdowns.

UFC you guys go over the top and that is what causes people to react. Tony Romo is an elite QB in this league. Is he the best? No. Can he become the best? Can he become the absolute best QB in the NFL? I believe he can. I have seen him make plays that are undeniably top level QB plays. So when you guys talk about him like he his holding the team back that is just crazy. If we win in Washington last year, yes we would have been playing at home for the playoffs and that would have been fun. But last year's team was dead in the water due to injuries. If you look at Brady's early success in the playoffs that team absolutely CARRIED him in my opinion. Now we see the uber-confident Brady who knows he has respect win or lose, but without the tuck rule who knows what his career would be? Without his kicker who knows where his career would be?

I have already stated what I muse over. I just wish to see him be more calm, play within himself. But heck that is coming from a FAN who has never played a down of NFL football. I think the better the team around him, the more confident he will become. I think if he wins ONE win and go into the playoffs game, and then a playoff game you will see his confidence GROW.

Danny White went the opposite way. Early in his career he won a ton of big games. Some in very dramatic fashion. Losing the NFC Championship games caused people to begin to pile on. At the end of his career his confidence was shot and his play lived up to what people expected, which was implosion.

CONFIDENCE IS HUGE IN SPORTS. Now I do know that, since I did play, and have sons who play, and you don't have to be in the NFL to recognize it.