Romo Is To The Cowboys, What Rodgers Is To The Packers

[TTexasTT]

They missed the playoffs

11-5 with 3600 yards and 21 TDs. They did pretty good without Brady.

 

[Pessimist_cowboy]

Rodgers is more important to the Packers than Romo is to the Cowboys.

Real nice premise you've got , very detailed insight .

 

[TheSport78]

Real nice premise you've got , very detailed insight .

Going into the Giants game where Romo suffered the fractured collarbone, Dallas was already 1-4 and on the brinks of disaster.

Going into the GB/CHI game, the Packers were 5-2, and now they're 5-6-1.

 

[rcaldw]

I don't agree with the original poster. The idea has already been disproved once. The last time the team was without Romo for an extended period (when Kitna was the backup) we actually had a better record without him.

2010 starters records:
Kitna 4-5
Romo 1-5
McGee 1-0

If we could do it then, why couldn't we do it now?

This is something I will never understand. Why do we have to act like an entire team hinges on one player in order to make that player seem valuable? Tony Romo IS valuable to the Cowboys. HE IS THE BEST QB ON THIS TEAM. He is also easily in the top half of QB's in this league, and on some Sundays in the top 5. So, in my mind, the assertion made in the original post is not tied in any way to the real value of Tony Romo.

Here is the better question. Are we a better team without him? OF COURSE NOT. Do we need him? YES. Do we want him out of our lineup like Rodgers is for this Packers right now? PLEASE NO.

But to suggest that a team would have no chance of winning, especially when you have a former starter as your backup, is just not something you can assume.

Troy Aikman won 3 Super Bowls as the starting QB of the Cowboys and is in the hall of fame. Jerry Jones invested in borderline starters at the backup position (Beurelein, Kosar, Peete). The result is that we could survive short stretches without Aikman. I think he has done the same with Orton.

 

[Plankton]

11-5 with 3600 yards and 21 TDs. They did pretty good without Brady.

And, they missed the playoffs

 

[TTexasTT]

Going into the Giants game where Romo suffered the fractured collarbone, Dallas was already 1-4 and on the brinks of disaster.

Going into the GB/CHI game, the Packers were 5-2, and now they're 5-6-1.

shhh... Facts have no place on this forum.

 

[Direwolf63]

Funny. What happened to the Pats when Brady went out with knee surgery?

They managed to win 11 games with one of the greatest coaches in NFL history. But didn't make the playoffs. Ask Belichek if the team would have been better off had Brady been healthy that year. Get back to me on what he says.

Nice try.

 

[TTexasTT]

And, they missed the playoffs

Because Cassell cant play defense as good as Brady. Right?

 

[TTexasTT]

They managed to win 11 games with one of the greatest coaches in NFL history. But didn't make the playoffs. Ask Belichek if the team would have been better off had Brady been healthy that year. Get back to me on what he says.

Nice try.

Just stop trolling already. What is the OP about? The point being they have better chances with Brady out than the other teams... Would Dallas or GB go 11-5 without their starting QBs? Now you go ask the coaches.... Dont worry Ill wait.

Dude, youre in last place.

 

[rcaldw]

11-5 with 3600 yards and 21 TDs. They did pretty good without Brady.

Great point, and it ties in with what I have posted as well. We don't have to make Romo the entire team to recognize we need him and that he is valuable.

 

[DFWJC]

I don't agree with the original poster. The idea has already been disproved once. The last time the team was without Romo for an extended period (when Kitna was the backup) we actually had a better record without him.

2010 starters records:
Kitna 4-5
Romo 1-5
McGee 1-0

If we could do it then, why couldn't we do it now?

This is something I will never understand. Why do we have to act like an entire team hinges on one player in order to make that player seem valuable? Tony Romo IS valuable to the Cowboys. HE IS THE BEST QB ON THIS TEAM. He is also easily in the top half of QB's in this league, and on some Sundays in the top 5. So, in my mind, the assertion made in the original post is not tied in any way to the real value of Tony Romo.

Here is the better question. Are we a better team without him? OF COURSE NOT. Do we need him? YES. Do we want him out of our lineup like Rodgers is for this Packers right now? PLEASE NO.

But to suggest that a team would have no chance of winning, especially when you have a former starter as your backup, is just not something you can assume.

Troy Aikman won 3 Super Bowls as the starting QB of the Cowboys and is in the hall of fame. Jerry Jones invested in borderline starters at the backup position (Beurelein, Kosar, Peete). The result is that we could survive short stretches without Aikman. I think he has done the same with Orton.

The Kitna example has a ton of flaws. Changing coaches had everything to do with that. How anyone could ignore that giant elephant in the room screams agenda.

Anyway, Dallas has a fairly high win percentage with Romo as the starter...way higher than with Kitna.

 

[TTexasTT]

Great point, and it ties in with what I have posted as well. We don't have to make Romo the entire team to recognize we need him and that he is valuable.

thanks. Now look at GB, or think is Orton were behind center. Things would get ugly.... Brady is an all time great, yet if he went down and Mallet went in they would still compete.

 

[rcaldw]

The Kitna example has a ton of flaws. Changing coaches had everything to do with that. How anyone could ignore that giant elephant in the room screams agenda.

Listen... the agenda talk thrown around on this forum gets old. Tell me what my agenda is? Didn't I just say we NEED Tony Romo? Didn't I just say HE IS VALUABLE TO THIS TEAM? What in the heck is my agenda? You want to know the truth? We have people who idolize individual players to the point that they lose perspective. Or, they get weary of people tearing down certain players, so they come to their defense in a way that sometimes lacks objectivity (in my opinion). And whether it was a change of coaches or not, how does that change the fact that AFTER THE COACHING CHANGE, the team played .500 football without Romo? What have we played the last 2 seasons WITH Romo? .500 football last time I checked.

All that I'm saying is that a football team isn't one player. Never has been, never will be. The Cowboys COULD (and didn't say would) win games without Tony Romo. To say otherwise has already been disproved. THEY DID IT.

 

[tyke1doe]

thanks. Now look at GB, or think is Orton were behind center. Things would get ugly.... Brady is an all time great, yet if he went down and Mallet went in they would still compete.

Not now they wouldn't.

 

[khiladi]

Kitna's run, our defense produced 27 TOs, while during Romo starting, the defense produced only 4 TOs...

Outside of that, Kitna threw 12 picks and fumbled 6 times. He was utter garbage, combined with the fact, Dallas actually went consevative and tried running the ball. The passing attack was terrible.

Coupled by the fact, the team only beat garbage scrub teams. We essentially won that year when we won the TO margin, smetimes pretty significantly. If I remember correctly, we even lost to the bad teams when we lost the TO margin by an insignificant number.

Players were playing for their job when Jerry went ballistic.

 

[TTexasTT]

Not now they wouldn't.

OK buddy.

 

[rcaldw]

Kitna's run, our defense produced 27 TOs, while during Romo starting, the defense produced only 4 TOs...

Outside of that, Kitna threw 12 picks and fumbled 6 times. He was utter garbage, combined with the fact, Dallas actually went consevative and tried running the ball. The passing attack was terrible.

Coupled by the fact, the team only beat garbage scrub teams. We essentially won that year when we won the TO margin, smetimes pretty significantly. If I remember correctly, we even lost to the bad teams when we lost the TO margin by an insignificant number.

Players were playing for their job when Jerry went ballistic.

I think you make some fair points here. It still doesn't nullify my point, which is a very simple one. Teams CAN and at times HAVE stayed on track during a sta rting QB's injury. No team is better off losing their starting QB. Unless they have their version of Wally Pipp and Lou Gehrig on their team.

By the way. Romo played better than Kitna that year, but the gap wasn't as wide as you might imagine.

No.        Age    Pos    G    GS    QBrec    Cmp    Att    Cmp%    Yds    TD    TD%    Int    Int%    Lng    Y/A    AY/A    Y/C    Y/G    Rate    QBR    Sk    Yds    NY/A    ANY/A    Sk%    4QC    GWD
3    Jon Kitna    38    QB    10    9    4-5-0    209    318    65.7    2365    16    5.0    12    3.8    71    7.4    6.7    11.3    236.5    88.9    46.03    21    100    6.68    6.03    6.2    1    2
9    Tony Romo    30    qb    6    6    1-5-0    148    213    69.5    1605    11    5.2    7    3.3    69    7.5    7.1    10.8    267.5    94.9    56.66    7    41    7.11    6.68    3.2       
7    Stephen McGee    25    qb    2    1    1-0-0    22    44    50.0    238    2    4.5    0    0.0    37    5.4    6.3    10.8    119.0    81.4    44.97    3    25    4.53    5.38    6.4    1    1
24    Marion Barber    27    RB    13    10        0    1    0.0    0    0    0.0    0    0.0    0    0.0    0.0        0.0    39.6        0    0    0.00    0.00    0.0       
Team Total    26.2        16        6-10-0    379    576    65.8    4208    29    5.0    19    3.3    71    7.3    6.8    11.1    263.0    90.4        31    166    6.66    6.21    5.1    2    3
Opp Total            16            348    540    64.4    4151    33    6.1    20    3.7        7.7    7.24    11.9    259.4    92.8        35    257    6.8    6.4    6.1

 

[khiladi]

I think you make some fair points here. It still doesn't nullify my point, which is a very simple one. Teams CAN and at times HAVE stayed on track during a sta rting QB's injury. No team is better off losing their starting QB. Unless they have their version of Wally Pipp and Lou Gehrig on their team.

I think that year clearly demonstrated the dynamic between an offense and defense. People look at them as isolated groups, but they aren't necessarily.

 

[rcaldw]

I think that year clearly demonstrated the dynamic between an offense and defense. People look at them as isolated groups, but they aren't necessarily.

I agree with you. Football is a team sport. Now, I believe the QB position at the end of the day is the most important position on the field. I think teams can occasionally win big with a bus driver, but they better have the Ravens defense. More times than not great teams have great QB's and that is especially true with multiple Super Bowl winners. There are just too many situations when a QB makes you or breaks you in big games.

 

[DFWJC]

Listen... the agenda talk thrown around on this forum gets old. Tell me what my agenda is? Didn't I just say we NEED Tony Romo? Didn't I just say HE IS VALUABLE TO THIS TEAM? What in the heck is my agenda? You want to know the truth? We have people who idolize individual players to the point that they lose perspective. Or, they get weary of people tearing down certain players, so they come to their defense in a way that sometimes lacks objectivity (in my opinion). And whether it was a change of coaches or not, how does that change the fact that AFTER THE COACHING CHANGE, the team played .500 football without Romo? What have we played the last 2 seasons WITH Romo? .500 football last time I checked.

All that I'm saying is that a football team isn't one player. Never has been, never will be. The Cowboys COULD (and didn't say would) win games without Tony Romo. To say otherwise has already been disproved. THEY DID IT.

Ok...I'll take back the agenda comment.

The point is that the team was temporarily totally rejuvenated when we switched coaches. It could not have been more clear that they gave up on Phillips. It happens all the time and is often a short term phenom. Looking at the turnovers generated by the defense is a good place to start.

I did like Kitna, btw. Especially 2-3 years ago, his leadership abilities were way ahead of Romo's....who has come a long way since then.