Phil Simms on Romo signing

[TwoDeep3]

Although Romo makes mistakes during a game, so does everyone else.

I've played organized sports and I know what it takes for a TEAM to come together and win a game. Just like your son in hockey...the boy cannot do it alone, he needs help!

But, foolish people that have never played organized sports, or just don't have simple logic cannot see that. It's really sad...

Good thing I don't fit in that category then, because I too played organized sports.

And while there are a number of players on and off the field at any given moment, there are times when one player can hand the game to the other team.

I am not suggesting Romo does this a lot. But he does do this. Your insulting haters comment that implies any discussion about the failures of this player, or your defense that it is always a team sport so he is absolved of any personal failure is fairly myopic.

But the point of my question to you was to see if you could make a logical and unbiased comment about Romo.

I refer to your answer

Take a hike...I'm done with you.

I have told you many, many, many times that I will never lay blame on one man out of 53!

Once Science can clone 53 Romo's and put them on the field and they lose, then I will blame Romo.

Get it?

Oh...the one game that I do blame Romo on is the hold in Seattle during his first start.

The Seattle game? really?

That would be one example where I think Romo was the least at fault of all the loses this team has suffered since he became a starter.

Fact is, if I recall, there was a player starting his first game as a pro in a year after being let go by other teams and Dallas. I think his name was Ralph Hunter. I cannot find him on any roster, But Dallas drafted him.

He stepped on the field for the first time that season after working for a real estate company, I believe, and Parcells decided not to throw against this guy. He was a DB for Seattle. I thought he went by the name Isaiah Hunter, but that may not be right either.

All game we treated him as if he were Lester Hayes or Mike Haynes.

Sorry, that game wasn't on Romo. That was on the defense.

 

[conner01]

Unrelated to Romo, but I think the Commanders screwed up Jason Campbell. If he had the same opportunity as Kaepernick with a coach like Jim Harbaugh and a steady team/organization around him, he would probably have become a decent starting QB.

while there is no way to know the truth, i think lots of qb's are ruined by their teams. they get in bad situations with poor teams and lose their confidence, they get poor coaching and such.i don't know about campbell in particualr but if teams built to a players strength more then more qb's might succeed

 

[SWG9]

The Seattle game? really?

That would be one example where I think Romo was the least at fault of all the loses this team has suffered since he became a starter.

Fact is, if I recall, there was a player starting his first game as a pro in a year after being let go by other teams and Dallas. I think his name was Ralph Hunter. I cannot find him on any roster, But Dallas drafted him.

He stepped on the field for the first time that season after working for a real estate company, I believe, and Parcells decided not to throw against this guy. He was a DB for Seattle. I thought he went by the name Isaiah Hunter, but that may not be right either.

All game we treated him as if he were Lester Hayes or Mike Haynes.

Sorry, that game wasn't on Romo. That was on the defense.

Man, I respect you, but I gotta disagree. Seattle is one of the (if not the) hardest places to play (witness the beating a veteran Saints team coming off a Superbowl win took there in the 2010 playoffs).

We're coming in with a rookie starter at QB who played poorly down the stretch; airing it out wasn't the right strategy.

The team played a near perfect road game in a hostile venue. I usually don't gripe about the refs, but Witten caught a third down pass that would have (IIRC) given Dallas a first and goal from the 1. The refs turned it over despite the fact there was no indisputable evidence, Dallas sent the FG unit on, and the rest is history.

That bobbled snap never should have happened because that first down never should have been overturned.

Anyway, you can't pin a loss like that on any one player or unit. We needed to make one more play, we just couldn't get there.

PS: It was Pete Hunter.

 

[BIGDen]

Just curious if you think any loss, ever since he has been a quarterback for this team, could be attributed to Romo?

Your answer could put you in the same category as your insulting haters comment, but polar opposite.

So for a change how about answer a question I ask you?

You're not going to find a bigger Romo fan than me, but of course he has cost them some games! He is RARELY a big reason why they lose and frequently why they win or have a chance to win. No player is flawless and every QB has cost their team at some point. I don't know of any Romo backer that says he is never at fault. However, I see plenty of Romo bashers that make him out to be a crappy QB who does nothing but choke - which is simply a load of crap.

 

[DFWJC]

Thanks for validating exactly what I thought. This is about Romo, Romo Romo and nothing else.

Ignore the Jets game two years ago. Or Detriot. Or Pittsburgh a few years back. Critical interceptions at critical times are always a team problem.

Funny how when pressed for you to make a serious comment you lash out.

See ya, buddy.

I know this wasn't for me, but just wanted to add something.

I think it's rare that you can blame an entire loss on any one player, or give all the credit for a win. This is not tennis or golf.

I guess if you had to pick a position in a team sport that would impact a single the game the most though, it would pitcher in baseball, goalie in hocky, and QB in football (though they only play offense).

If a QB throws for either 300 yards, 3 TDs and 0 ints, or 150 yards, 0 TDs and 2-3 picks, then that player has had a major affect (one way or the other) on the game.

But if, like in the Jets example, the player throws for 340 yards, 2 TDs and very key int, has 101 QB rating...one of the best of the year vs the Jets....no way did that player lose the game all by himself.
The Lion game was the same way; 330 yards, 3 TDs, 3 ints.
He hurt the team badly, but at times he helped the team greatly in both games.

There are many other QBs whose bad games have just as many disaster plays but hardly any good plays to counter them.

Eli's 0 TD and 3 int playoff game comes to mind.
He has a bunch more like that as well. Most QBs have their fair share.
I think Romo may have one game in his career where he has multiple ints yet no TDs.

I guess Romo's version would be would be the Chicago game last year when he made some good plays to start but his bad plays FAR outweighed them.
2 TDs and 5 ints....although you can't pin a loss on one player, that gets you in the conversation.

I agree that Seattle game should not even be in the conversation--at least not for Romo as a QB...maybe a holder.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Man, I respect you, but I gotta disagree. Seattle is one of the (if not the) hardest places to play (witness the beating a veteran Saints team coming off a Superbowl win took there in the 2010 playoffs).

We're coming in with a rookie starter at QB who played poorly down the stretch; airing it out wasn't the right strategy.

The team played a near perfect road game in a hostile venue. I usually don't gripe about the refs, but Witten caught a third down pass that would have (IIRC) given Dallas a first and goal from the 1. The refs turned it over despite the fact there was no indisputable evidence, Dallas sent the FG unit on, and the rest is history.

That bobbled snap never should have happened because that first down never should have been overturned.

Anyway, you can't pin a loss like that on any one player or unit. We needed to make one more play, we just couldn't get there.

PS: It was Pete Hunter.

There you go. He's listed as Ralph on the draft site I use to recall all teams and all players. I could not, for the life of me, remember the name he used.

I agree somewhat with your stance on the game.

I discount the field, because a team that is clearly better should win on any field.

My problem with that game was Parcells handcuffed Romo because Parcells had this old school temperament that a rookie cannot get it done.

I cannot image him starting RG III or Luck their first year, even with Chad Hutchenson as the back-up.

My personal opinion is Parcells was worried more about his legacy than moving into this century.

 

[BIGDen]

There you go. He's listed as Ralph on the draft site I use to recall all teams and all players. I could not, for the life of me, remember the name he used.

I agree somewhat with your stance on the game.

I discount the field, because a team that is clearly better should win on any field.

My problem with that game was Parcells handcuffed Romo because Parcells had this old school temperament that a rookie cannot get it done.

I cannot image him starting RG III or Luck their first year, even with Chad Hutchenson as the back-up.

My personal opinion is Parcells was worried more about his legacy than moving into this century.

I couldn't agree with you more about this. We should've attacked that joke of a secondary but tough guy Parcells played scared. He rode Romo all the way to the playoffs and then handcuffed him. That game shouldn't have been that close.

 

[Vintage]

What's Ware's record in elimination games?

Sounds like we got two chokers we need to move on from.

white text

 

[Aven8]

I've been saying this about Romo for years. He is our only chance. For the haters, kickback and ride the pine with Orton. Or come back in 4 years when he rides off into the sunset.

4-12 is spot on without him. I still think even with the horrible Oline play if we hadn't lost the entire middle of our defense we would have gotten in.

 

[jrumann59]

The Seattle game? really?

That would be one example where I think Romo was the least at fault of all the loses this team has suffered since he became a starter.

Fact is, if I recall, there was a player starting his first game as a pro in a year after being let go by other teams and Dallas. I think his name was Ralph Hunter. I cannot find him on any roster, But Dallas drafted him.

He stepped on the field for the first time that season after working for a real estate company, I believe, and Parcells decided not to throw against this guy. He was a DB for Seattle. I thought he went by the name Isaiah Hunter, but that may not be right either.

All game we treated him as if he were Lester Hayes or Mike Haynes.

Sorry, that game wasn't on Romo. That was on the defense.

You mean PETE Hunter

 

[jrumann59]

Its sad that fans and prognosticators blame romo for the losses whether rightly or wrongly. I count 4 wins last year that would have been losses if not for romo and his heroics in the 2nd half. Without romo this team would have been 4-12 last year and that last game would have been a tune up or rest your starters game for washington.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I've been saying this about Romo for years. He is our only chance. For the haters, kickback and ride the pine with Orton. Or come back in 4 years when he rides off into the sunset.

4-12 is spot on without him. I still think even with the horrible Oline play if we hadn't lost the entire middle of our defense we would have gotten in.

I guess I don't understand the term haters.

Does that mean I cannot point out his shortcomings or I am a hater?

Where is George Orwell?

 

[Aven8]

I guess I don't understand the term haters.

Does that mean I cannot point out his shortcomings or I am a hater?

Where is George Orwell?

No problem with shortcomings. But why do you not like him, and what's it like being a fan of the team when the main dude of the team you dislike?

I know my feelings for Chutch, Bledsoe, Qcar, etc. when they were starting. But I don't see how anybody with any football knowledge could not see how good this guy is. Yes he's not perfect, but neither is Manning, Brady, or Rogers either.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

The haters will disagree with Simms. :laugh2:

Every Cowboy loss is because of Romo, so the knuckleheads say!

Said no one, ever.. but don't let me interrupt the hyperbole.

 

[Stinger_Splash]

Simms is pretty nice. That's all I'm going to say :laugh1:.

 

[tupperware]

The haters will disagree with Simms. :laugh2:

Every Cowboy loss is because of Romo, so the knuckleheads say!

Word.

Atleast with Romo we'll be 8-8!

 

[Sportsbabe]

haters gon hate

I love the "new stat" line. So true. It's amazing what people will come up with to prove their point. It reminds me of "finding the scripture to justify your position".

 

[Sportsbabe]

Word.

Atleast with Romo we'll be 8-8!

Now that's funny. I would say "good one". But I can't co-sign on 8-8:laugh2:

 

[EightyEight]

The haters will disagree with Simms. :laugh2:

Every Cowboy loss is because of Romo, so the knuckleheads say!

It's such a one man show that almost every loss is on Romo but almost every win is because of him too. The guy has minimal help.

 

[starman22]

I think very much there are plenty of examples to show we win solely because of Romo. I like the guy.

But I am not so blinded by his stats that I also don't see him lose games too. Unlike others who defend this guy to the Nth degree, he is human, and in my eyes capable and has shown he can lose a game all by himself.

Team sport only goes so far. And I wonder if the roles were reversed back in December and RGIII tossed a game ending pick, if the ones defending Romo now like blind mice, would have been the first to make claims such as "he's not as good as they say," and "Romo is so much better and this proves it."

It's all about validating one player on this team.

First off, I like having Romo as the quarterback on my favorite team.

Second, I think the two sides of the Romo fence feed off of each other. When one side says something with blind hatred of the man or the other side says that he is the only qb that could possibly work with the cards that Jerry has dealt him, it causes the other side to react to it. Most of the time it is even more tilted toward or against Romo just to get their point across. It is just a never ending cycle that won't go away until after we win the next Super Bowl.

It is almost like one side exists just to spite the other. Both sides just can't believe how blind the other is so they go to extremes to prove their point.

I wonder if it like this on other team forums?

Starman22