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

[TwoCentPlain]

Placing the sole blame for the Packers' recent poor performance on Rodgers being out, misses the bigger picture. Don't forget Cobb broke his leg, Finley is on IR, and LBs Matthews and Perry missed extended time to injury. Without Finley and Cobb, even with Rodgers in there, the offense would have taken a huge hit.

Psychologically, this team doesn't believe in themselves anymore. And that would be understandable given the circumstances. You just aren't going to win many games with 4th string QB Matt Flynn who barely practiced with the team and also missing Finley and Cobb. Just ain't happening.

<Sarcasm>The Packers have an all-world GM. Wonder why he wasn't able to foresee all this happening? Why no depth? Maybe he should have drafted other players? 100 yards and now on IR Jonathan Franklin in the 4th after taking Lacy? Seriously?! Sure could have used that 4th rd pick on some other player. Heck, should have drafted in the 4th TE Fauria who is now with Det. Maybe he should have kept Vince Young on the roster? Maybe he shouldn't have given those big contracts to Rodgers and Matthews? Stupid GM. <Sarcasm>

Had this happened in Dallas, I'm sure a lot would have blamed Jerry Jones.

 

[rcaldw]

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.

Yea man, I'm in no way shape or fashion arguing that Kitna was close to Romo. Light years apart. I'm only saying that temporarily the team was able to win a few ball games. That is really all you want from a backup. Almost every team that loses their starting QB for a season can kiss the season goodbye in terms of playoff/Super Bowl aspirations. That would certainly be true in Dallas (on the Super Bowl side).

 

[john van brocklin]

Have you been watching the Packers w/o Rodgers? Garbage.

If we didnt have Romo it would be the same for us.

We have a valuable QB!

http://t3.***NOT-ALLOWED***/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRwWZMDzZQUr7DdnqJDZEMzN5twDu5PTfrsfTwWwoZ7BGMdmUbK

I wish we had a love option instead of just a like option.
I could not agree with you more.
One day Cowboy fans are going to realize just how good we had it.
Any fan that was here for the Campo years knows exactly what I mean !

 

[percyhoward]

Yea man, I'm in no way shape or fashion arguing that Kitna was close to Romo. Light years apart. I'm only saying that temporarily the team was able to win a few ball games. That is really all you want from a backup. Almost every team that loses their starting QB for a season can kiss the season goodbye in terms of playoff/Super Bowl aspirations. That would certainly be true in Dallas (on the Super Bowl side).

In 2010, it was the takeaways that won those games. In that 5-3 finish, Dallas was 1-3 in games when the defense did not have at least 3 takeaways.

 

[Plankton]

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

Considering that he threw for 29 fewer touchdowns, that may have had something to do with it.

 

[rcaldw]

In 2010, it was the takeaways that won those games. In that 5-3 finish, Dallas was 1-3 in games when the defense did not have at least 3 takeaways.

Ok. Still doesn't negate my point. A TEAM can win games without its starter. Romo included. Are they as good without him? No.

 

[rcaldw]

In 2010, it was the takeaways that won those games. In that 5-3 finish, Dallas was 1-3 in games when the defense did not have at least 3 takeaways.

By the way Percy. Did the defense score all of the points too? I'm not arguing against your point, I am simply pointing out that the offense still took advantage of those turnovers, whether by FG or TD.

 

[TTexasTT]

Considering that he threw for 29 fewer touchdowns, that may have had something to do with it.

Stay on topic. Im not going to get baited into a childish agrument with some like yourself.

When Dallas or GB go 11-5 with backups get back to me...

I look forward to you never getting back to me.

 

[percyhoward]

Ok. Still doesn't negate my point. A TEAM can win games without its starter.

Sure. My point was that the takeaways were the reason in the example you gave.

 

[rcaldw]

Sure. My point was that the takeaways were the reason in the example you gave.

You still have to execute after turnovers or you don't win. Unless the defense scored all of those points then someone else was doing some executing too.

 

[Plankton]

Stay on topic. Im not going to get baited into a childish agrument with some like yourself.

When Dallas or GB go 11-5 with backups get back to me...

I look forward to you never getting back to me.

Childish?

Just because your point wasn't what you intended it to be isn't my fault.

The last time Romo was out of the lineup, the Cowboys went 5-3, or, roughly equivalent to what Cassel did replacing Brady.

Even then, though the record looked good, the QB play was not up to the standard or either Brady or Romo.

You were the one who made the example - don't act like a baby when someone calls you on it.

 

[percyhoward]

By the way Percy. Did the defense score all of the points too? I'm not arguing against your point, I am simply pointing out that the offense still took advantage of those turnovers, whether by FG or TD.

Actually, if you remove the defensive scores, the record goes from 5-3 to 3-5 (and possibly 2-4, depending on how you think the Giants game comes out). Dallas in 2010 is not the best example for the point you're trying to make.

 

[TTexasTT]

Childish?

Just because your point wasn't what you intended it to be isn't my fault.

The last time Romo was out of the lineup, the Cowboys went 5-3, or, roughly equivalent to what Cassel did replacing Brady.

Even then, though the record looked good, the QB play was not up to the standard or either Brady or Romo.

You were the one who made the example - don't act like a baby when someone calls you on it.

"roughly equivalent"
What planet do you live on? Do they have football there?

Cassell is a terrible QB but did fairly well on the Pats with Brady out. That wouldnt happen here.
Im not acting like a baby. You just dont have any clue what youre talking about. Go on about your day, sir.
lol

 

[rcaldw]

Actually, if you remove the defensive scores, the record goes from 5-3 to 3-5 (and possibly 2-4, depending on how you think the Giants game comes out). Dallas in 2010 is not the best example for the point you're trying to make.

It is a perfect example of the point I am making. The point I am making is that this team can win games without Tony Romo. They did! No one can say they didn't. They won 5 of them. Now you can try and give it to the defense, or coaches, or aliens for as much as I care.... it still won't change the fact, it has been done. It is the only point I am making and it is absolutely valid.

 

[rcaldw]

Actually, if you remove the defensive scores, the record goes from 5-3 to 3-5 (and possibly 2-4, depending on how you think the Giants game comes out). Dallas in 2010 is not the best example for the point you're trying to make.

And 3-5 is still better than 1-4... 2-4 is better than 1-4. Again, though, the main points always seem to get lost in these discussions. I am NOT arguing that we don't need Tony Romo, or that he stinks. I believe just the opposite. We absolutely need him, and when he plays as well as he can he is as good as they come. My point is that you cannot just assume that we are "garbage" if he goes down, if by garbage you mean we can't win games.

 

[jobberone]

So what is the excuse for the Packers defense?

Same as ours

 

[Plankton]

"roughly equivalent"
What planet do you live on? Do they have football there?

Cassell is a terrible QB but did fairly well on the Pats with Brady out. That wouldnt happen here.
Im not acting like a baby. You just dont have any clue what youre talking about. Go on about your day, sir.
lol

The last resort of a failed argument is to resort to insults and name calling.

I will admit an error on one thing: Kitna went 5-5 in place of Romo (two of the losses were under Phillips, and the team went 5-3 under Garrett).

But, let's recap the larger point:

The Patriots in 2007 went 16-0, and Brady threw for 50 TDs. The Patriots went to the Super Bowl.

The Patriots in 2008 went 11-5 (Cassel took over in the second quarter of the first game). Cassel threw for 21 TDs. The Patriots failed to make the playoffs.

Aside from five more losses and 29 fewer TDs from the QB position, as well as missing the playoffs, there was not much of a dropoff according to you?

Keep running with that.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

They missed the playoffs

They won 11 games.

 

[Direwolf63]

They won 11 games.

They won 18 games the year before. And was a fluke/miracle catch away from winning 19.

 

[rcaldw]

Well, one thing we can all agree on, you can't call 11 wins garbage now can you?