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

[ScipioCowboy]

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

You think it wouldn't be a controversial point.

 

[percyhoward]

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.

It's a great example to support the point that we can win when we get a lot of takeaways, no matter who the QB is.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Tony can get us to the brink of the playoffs. Let us see if he can actually win some playoff games.

 

[lostar2009]

Tgte="Plankton, post: 5326013, member: 1174"]They missed the playoffs[/quote]

They went 10-6 ? 11-5 ? That year right ?

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

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

Not always. Sometimes its a very pertinent part of the discussion because the other party has earned it.

Not saying thats the case here, just making an observation.

 

[slomoxn]

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.

The sarcasm GM part still doesn't mean Jerry is a good GM. His shortcomings have nothing to do with injuries, he is a complete flop at team building. Yes his drafting has gotten better but that is a good 18 years of trial and error, trading away useful picks and a plethora of mistakes that any GM on any other team would have been fired for. He/they however it is called are still wasting second round picks on TEs and this latest one i don't think even gets in the game now. That is the reason he is a crappy GM.

 

[slomoxn]

Not always. Sometimes its a very pertinent part of the discussion because the other party has earned it.

Not saying thats the case here, just making an observation.

Name calling when not in the persons face is a Mitch move, what is a Mitch? Look up Kevin Hart's definition .

 

[joseephuss]

Most teams who lose their starting QBs are not going to be as good with their backups. The exceptions will be the teams whose starting QB isn't that good to begin with since there will be little drop off between the starter and the backup. Dallas because of Orton would be in better shape than some other teams, but there is still a drop off between he and Romo.

The Packers really screwed up on getting their back up QB situation in order this season. They waited until the last moment before signing Seneca Wallace to be their back up. That isn't a good way to prepare for a season. It was bad luck that he got hurt, but it was bad decision making and preparation that led to him being the back up in the first place.

 

[phildadon86]

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

They missed the playoffs?

 

[rcaldw]

It's a great example to support the point that we can win when we get a lot of takeaways, no matter who the QB is.

You can state it any way you want to. Does that include with Romo out? Because that is all I am asserting. The reason why you resist the argument the way I state it is because you don't like the implications. I say you have no reason to fear the implications. It is just common sense. One guy going down on a football team does not mean that the team can't win no matter what. By the way, you admitted that if you took away defensive TD's (which I don't know why we would do that, Romo has gotten plenty of help from those this season), we STILL HAD A BETTER RECORD that year without him. True? So my point is made both ways. You just don't like it.

 

[rcaldw]

Most teams who lose their starting QBs are not going to be as good with their backups. The exceptions will be the teams whose starting QB isn't that good to begin with since there will be little drop off between the starter and the backup. Dallas because of Orton would be in better shape than some other teams, but there is still a drop off between he and Romo.

The Packers really screwed up on getting their back up QB situation in order this season. They waited until the last moment before signing Seneca Wallace to be their back up. That isn't a good way to prepare for a season. It was bad luck that he got hurt, but it was bad decision making and preparation that led to him being the back up in the first place.

A reasonable and accurate post.

 

[5Stars]

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

I have no clue what this means!

 

[gimmesix]

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

Not sure I agree. Rodgers can be considered a better piece, one with which the Packers have shown they can contend for Super Bowls, but I think their importance to their teams is the same.

Just watching the defenses, both teams would be drafting near the top of the draft without their franchise quarterbacks. (Of course, the same can be said of several teams.)

It would be nice if Dallas was more like Kansas City and didn't have to have a game-changing quarterback to win, but that's not and hasn't been the case.

 

[rcaldw]

By the way, the one game we won that season, Dallas won the turnover battle against Houston (3-0). So we can take that one away from Romo. He was 0-4 on his own merits. Isn't that how we play the game?

Game 1 - loss at Washington - Romo had zero picks, we had 1 turnover. Washington had 0.

Not sure I agree. Rodgers can be considered a better piece, one with which the Packers have shown they can contend for Super Bowls, but I think their importance to their teams is the same.

Just watching the defenses, both teams would be drafting near the top of the draft without their franchise quarterbacks. (Of course, the same can be said of several teams.)

It would be nice if Dallas was more like Kansas City and didn't have to have a game-changing quarterback to win, but that's not and hasn't been the case.

I agree with you this season. Here is why this season is very different from 2010. Tony has stopped turning the ball over as much. He had 7 interceptions in 2010 in 5 games and 7 throws in a 6th. One of the things I love about Romo's play this season (and it isn't the only season in which he has been good at it) is that he is protecting the ball better.

 

[joseephuss]

Not sure I agree. Rodgers can be considered a better piece, one with which the Packers have shown they can contend for Super Bowls, but I think their importance to their teams is the same.

Just watching the defenses, both teams would be drafting near the top of the draft without their franchise quarterbacks. (Of course, the same can be said of several teams.)

It would be nice if Dallas was more like Kansas City and didn't have to have a game-changing quarterback to win, but that's not and hasn't been the case.

Come playoff time KC will need more of a game-changing QB.

 

[Beast_from_East]

I think it goes without saying that most teams that lose their starting QBs for any significant amount of time are not going to be playoff teams.

 

[rcaldw]

By the way, the one game we won that season, Dallas won the turnover battle against Houston (3-0). So we can take that one away from Romo. He was 0-4 on his own merits. Isn't that how we play the game?

Game 1 - loss at Washington - Romo had zero picks, we had 1 turnover. Washington had 0.


I agree with you this season. Here is why this season is very different from 2010. Tony has stopped turning the ball over as much. He had 7 interceptions in 2010 in 5 games and 7 throws in a 6th. One of the things I love about Romo's play this season (and it isn't the only season in which he has been good at it) is that he is protecting the ball better.

Sorry, partial post. Was going to go through and document all turnovers in the first 6 games of that year and then decided....eh.... who cares

 

[rcaldw]

I think it goes without saying that most teams that lose their starting QBs for any significant amount of time are not going to be playoff teams.

yep

 

[percyhoward]

You can state it any way you want to. Does that include with Romo out? Because that is all I am asserting. The reason why you resist the argument the way I state it is because you don't like the implications. I say you have no reason to fear the implications. It is just common sense. One guy going down on a football team does not mean that the team can't win no matter what. By the way, you admitted that if you took away defensive TD's (which I don't know why we would do that, Romo has gotten plenty of help from those this season), we STILL HAD A BETTER RECORD that year without him. True? So my point is made both ways. You just don't like it.

No, I just think your example is misleading. Not saying it's intentional, just that it's a bad example. You're pointing to a stretch of 8 games which include 4 games with 3+ takeaways by our defense. At that takeaway pace, there would have been 55 such games while Romo was quarterback. There have actually been 19. That is a gigantic difference of about 1/3 as many games.

With teams that have 3+ takeaways winning 80% of the time (which they do), about three times as many 3+ takeaway games means 2-3 more wins per season. Over his career, the Cowboys' average 9.5 wins per season with Romo. After you add in the 2.5 additional wins from all the extra takeaways, that gets you to 12 wins per season. That's not what this team has been, obviously.

I agree with the "One guy going down on a football team does not mean that the team can't win no matter what." But there are major problems with "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. Why couldn't we do it again?"

Theoretically, we could do it again. But you might as well ask, "Why couldn't this team have averaged 12 wins a season?"

 

[rcaldw]

No, I just think your example is misleading. Not saying it's intentional, just that it's a bad example. You're pointing to a stretch of 8 games which include 4 games with 3+ takeaways by our defense. At that takeaway pace, there would have been 55 such games while Romo was quarterback. There have actually been 19. That is a gigantic difference of about 1/3 as many games.

With teams that have 3+ takeaways winning 80% of the time (which they do), about three times as many 3+ takeaway games means 2-3 more wins per season. Over his career, the Cowboys' average 9.5 wins per season with Romo. After you add in the 2.5 additional wins from all the extra takeaways, that gets you to 12 wins per season. That's not what this team has been, obviously.

I agree with the "One guy going down on a football team does not mean that the team can't win no matter what." But there are major problems with "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. Why couldn't we do it again?"

Theoretically, we could do it again. But you might as well ask, "Why couldn't this team have averaged 12 wins a season?"

I hear what you are saying Percy. Hear me say that I hear what you are saying. Because I do. But again, I think you are over thinking what was a very simple point on my part. There are people who act as if if Romo went down we couldn't win a game. It is an unreasonable position to take, given the fact that it has already been proven that we can. We did. I'm not arguing THAT WE WOULD. There is no way to know how things would turn out right now. I'm not arguing IT IS LIKELY we would. I am simply arguing that we certainly could, because we did once upon a time. I would also that you continue to ignore the fact that even in the games you mentioned that we would have won without defensive scores, we still had a better record that year without him. So it IS possible.

I understand all the variables, including strength of opponent, etc. But it seems to me that there are some who only parse these things in a way that is designed to make Tony look the best we possibly can. I completely agree that there are some who parse things out in a way that is designed to make him look as bad as they possibly can. I don't like either approach, and I think that sometimes we OVER analyze these things. It really is pretty simple. Did a QB do enough to help his team win, or did he contribute to their demise in that particular game? More games than not Romo plays well.