Shanahan comment about Romo

[Cebrin]

Did his int vs Denver not come at the worst possible time? How about his final int vs Washington in the season finale last year did that turnover not come at the worst possible time?

Int's turn in to points. Mannings turnover gave us points too. Doesn't matter when you turn it over, it still can cost you the game. They had more turnovers than we did and we still lost because our Defense is atrocious.

 

[Ring Leader]

You keep replying you're the one who initiated this discussion. lol All you're doing is continuing to make more excuses. Eli was sacked 6 times and hit 22 times vs SF in the 2011 NFC title game and still got it done. QB's are going to face adversity during elimination games especially on the road and if they can't handle the pressure you're going home. Eli and Brady have choked at times BUT both have made plenty of big plays in critical situations during spotlighted games after hitting the ground a number of times.

Not once did either QB win a championship without facing adversity during their championship runs. Eli is proving this season how damaging a QB's turnovers are to a teams success. He had 27 turnovers in 07 and 4 vs Minn including 3 pick-sixes but once he stopped turning the ball over that season the Giants turned things around. Eli has only had 2 turnovers in his 8 playoff wins that include 2 SB wins.

Eli got it done? Wow. He went 6 straight series at the end of that game without points, the San Fran DBs dropped 1 or possibly two easy picks, and it took a SF special teams gaff deep in their own territory to set up the game winning field goal (which had nothing to do with Eli whatsoever). Everybody and everything "except" Eli got it done.

 

[Kevinicus]

Did his int vs Denver not come at the worst possible time? How about his final int vs Washington in the season finale last year did that turnover not come at the worst possible time?

Did I say they never came at bad times? Can you tell me when there is a good time? Manning's INT was certainly no better than Romo's. I look at the game as a whole, not in small sample sizes.

 

[KJJ]

Eli got it done? Wow. He went 6 straight series at the end of that game without points, the San Fran DBs dropped 1 or possibly two easy picks, and it took a SF special teams gaff deep in their own territory to set up the game winning field goal (which had nothing to do with Eli whatsoever). Everybody and everything "except" Eli got it done.

Yes Eli got it done he had over 300 yards passing on the road against a great defense that was knocking him around like a pinball and he had 2 TD's and NO turnovers.

 

[KJJ]

Did I say they never came at bad times? Can you tell me when there is a good time? Manning's INT was certainly no better than Romo's. I look at the game as a whole, not in small sample sizes.

Dude Manning's int came late in the 3rd quarter how can that be no better than Romo's int that occurred with just over 2 minutes to play deep in Cowboys territory in a tie game? You still have no idea what an "ill-timed" turnover is.

 

[KJJ]

Int's turn in to points. Mannings turnover gave us points too. Doesn't matter when you turn it over, it still can cost you the game. They had more turnovers than we did and we still lost because our Defense is atrocious.

It does matter when you turn it over. Manning's turnover came late in the 3rd quarter but Denver had the entire 4th quarter to overcome the points it cost them. The points Romo's turnover cost the Cowboys couldn't be overcome because his turnover came so late in the game Denver was able to take the lead leaving the Cowboys with no time.

 

[Cebrin]

It does matter when you turn it over. Manning's turnover came late in the 3rd quarter but Denver had the entire 4th quarter to overcome the points it cost them. The points Romo's turnover cost the Cowboys couldn't be overcome because his turnover came so late in the game Denver was able to take the lead leaving the Cowboys with no time.

 

[KJJ]

Both got their rings on the backs of their studded defenses. Since then they've crawled up the ladder of their weak division and failed when it counted. Even Eli beat Tom Brady. So if it's QB's that win the big game then why did Eli beat Brady? I'm not spitting excuses. You've consistently just poured your anti-romo mess while consistently ignoring every fact I've given you as well as anyone else hear who has made a remarkable argument to you propaganda. Continue reading articles from News writers who hate the Cowboys and love to give off as much anti Cowboy news as they can. Again I'll say, we should just agree to disagree.

Eli's studded defense ranked 27th in 2011. The Steelers had the #1 defense that season and got shredded by Tim Tebow for over 300 yards in the playoffs. Eli's studded defense had him behind in the final minutes in both SB's he won. There's a reason Eli was named the MVP in both those SB's and it's because when those games were on the line in the final minutes he made a couple of great plays in the most critical situation a QB can be in.

The ones who are arguing with me claim Romo doesn't choke. There's not a turnover Romo has ever committed that some won't try and make excuses for or blame on other players. Are you saying Romo doesn't have a choker reputation? Is this something ESPN and others are just making up? There's no evidence to even slightly suggest that Romo chokes in critical situations in spotlighted games?

 

[Risen Star]

John Elway would have won zero Super Bowls playing for a hands on Jerry.

Same with Montana, Brady, Aikman....any great QB you can think of.

Romo should have accepted the Broncos' UDFA offer. He'd have had a better chance at having postseason success.

 

[Red Dragon]

Romo should have accepted the Broncos' UDFA offer. He'd have had a better chance at having postseason success.

I think the important thing was getting a chance to be a starting quarterback, not so much the chances of postseason success. Being a starting quarterback, no matter how good or bad your team, means a great opportunity for fame and millions of dollars.

Technically, the 3rd-string quarterback on a Super Bowl winning team has a championship ring, but you don't think he'd trade places with a starting QB like Matthew Stafford, who gets paid many millions, in a heartbeat?

 

[Cebrin]

Eli's studded defense ranked 27th in 2011. The Steelers had the #1 defense that season and got shredded by Tim Tebow for over 300 yards in the playoffs. Eli's studded defense had him behind in the final minutes in both SB's he won. There's a reason Eli was named the MVP in both those SB's and it's because when those games were on the line in the final minutes he made a couple of great plays in the most critical situation a QB can be in.

The ones who are arguing with me claim Romo doesn't choke. There's not a turnover Romo has ever committed that some won't try and make excuses for or blame on other players. Are you saying Romo doesn't have a choker reputation? Is this something ESPN and others are just making up? There's no evidence to even slightly suggest that Romo chokes in critical situations in spotlighted games?

Since 1990, teams ranked 1st or 2nd in scoring defense are 10-2 in the Super Bowl. Both losses (2010 Packers over Steelers, 2004 Patriots over Eagles) came to a team that was also ranked 1st or 2nd in scoring defense. Overall, teams ranked 1st or 2nd in scoring defense are 22-11. 31 of 46 Super Bowl winners had a top 5 scoring defense. 30 Super Bowl winners had a top 5 total defense. - From earlier.

I'll take those odds over being a team with only one Superbowl (Manning, Rodgers, Brees) . I'd rather be Brady or Aikman with 3. Hell, I'd take either at this point I suppose but, you still have to have SOME sort of D. I'm by no means saying Tony doesn't have some games where he vanishes. It happens to the best of them. I also am aware Tony isn't the best QB in the league. He's still a top 10 QB. A luxury a lot of teams would love to have.

 

[Red Dragon]

Since 1990, teams ranked 1st or 2nd in scoring defense are 10-2 in the Super Bowl. Both losses (2010 Packers over Steelers, 2004 Patriots over Eagles) came to a team that was also ranked 1st or 2nd in scoring defense. Overall, teams ranked 1st or 2nd in scoring defense are 22-11. 31 of 46 Super Bowl winners had a top 5 scoring defense. 30 Super Bowl winners had a top 5 total defense. - From earlier.

I'll take those odds over being a team with only one Superbowl (Manning, Rodgers, Brees) . I'd rather be Brady or Aikman with 3. Hell, I'd take either at this point I suppose but, you still have to have SOME sort of D. I'm by no means saying Tony doesn't have some games where he vanishes. It happens to the best of them. I also am aware Tony isn't the best QB in the league. He's still a top 10 QB. A luxury a lot of teams would love to have.

Stop arguing with him. Some people don't like facts.

 

[Cebrin]

[quote="KJJ, post: 5230554, member: 24819"]Eli's studded defense ranked 27th in 2011. The Steelers had the #1 defense that season and got shredded by Tim Tebow for over 300 yards in the playoffs. Eli's studded defense had him behind in the final minutes in both SB's he won. There's a reason Eli was named the MVP in both those SB's and it's because when those games were on the line in the final minutes he made a couple of great plays in the most critical situation a QB can be in.

The ones who are arguing with me claim Romo doesn't choke. There's not a turnover Romo has ever committed that some won't try and make excuses for or blame on other players. Are you saying Romo doesn't have a choker reputation? Is this something ESPN and others are just making up? There's no evidence to even slightly suggest that Romo chokes in critical situations in spotlighted games?[/quote]

They were plagued with injuries that year I recall as well. Most all of the players came back and they all started gelling at just the right time. Eli's a pretty good QB though. No arguing that. He's sucking the boob this year though, wow.

 

[Brooksey]

Some of you need to come to grips that Romo made a bad decision on the throw and even Garrett said so himself. Every time Romo turns the ball over in a critical situation FANS come on here and make excuses. When he threw the pick at the end of the Redsk*n game in the season finale last year the excuse was his ribs were hurt and he had pressure in his face. When he fumbled the snap in Seattle during the 06 playoffs some FANS blamed it on a slick ball. Every mistake he makes FANS make excuses.

Actually he made the right decision. It was 2nd and 16 and that was a 10 yd pass bringing up a manageable 3rd and 6. The 3 yard dump to Murray maybe only gains 5-6 yards. When Romo made his decision, Escobar had a step and was wide open, following that Escobar drifted upfield instead of downfield on a dig and smith was thrown into romo, causing him to trip into his release. Lastly the guy made a hell of a play. That's not a choker. Cursed maybe but not a choker. Watch last night how Eli played... That's a choke job.


Lastly one thing you fail to realize is in these big moments, Romo is being heavily pressured. At these times we need protection, not jailbreak chaos... That's what I see. Just about everyone of those picks were desperate attempts to make something out of nothing with zero blocking or a bad wr route. Very few are Romo sitting in the pocket with time, throwing high or behind his receiver or just making bad decisions. If u think different post some vids, lets take a look.

 

[gbrittain]

It should not take somewhere between 550 to 580 yards 6 TDs and 0 INTs to win a game. I remember when Aaron Rodgers fumbled in the OT game against the Cardinals before he ever won the Super Bowl and nobody blamed him. As a matter of fact I remember pointing this out and some of the very people on this forum bashing Romo for his latest INT defend Aaron Rodgers because "You cant blame a guy because he was the reason Green Bay was even in the game".

You can say whatever you want to say and even blame him for the INT as if the OL did not impact his throwing motion, but in the end the defense lost the game. Even after the INT they could have held Peyton to three and out and a FG and Romo would have had another crack it.

 

[Risen Star]

I think the important thing was getting a chance to be a starting quarterback, not so much the chances of postseason success. Being a starting quarterback, no matter how good or bad your team, means a great opportunity for fame and millions of dollars.

Technically, the 3rd-string quarterback on a Super Bowl winning team has a championship ring, but you don't think he'd trade places with a starting QB like Matthew Stafford, who gets paid many millions, in a heartbeat?

I'm trying to understand your point.

If you have the talent, you're going to start. If you don't, you won't. Romo had the talent. He should have signed to a team without an insane owner. As much as I love this team, I would definitely have chosen another place to play for that reason. I want to win.

 

[Brooksey]

The Saints game in 09 was clearly a "spotlighted game" but Romo was never in a come from behind situation in that game try following my posts.

That's because he took it to them the whole game. Every series matters the most in reality. For example if Dallas won last week, Peyton's int would have cost them the momentum of the game, its just as bad with 10 minutes as two minutes.

You're a typical media bandwagon fan, I'm serious you should root for the Miami dolphins.

 

[Kevinicus]

It does matter when you turn it over. Manning's turnover came late in the 3rd quarter but Denver had the entire 4th quarter to overcome the points it cost them. The points Romo's turnover cost the Cowboys couldn't be overcome because his turnover came so late in the game Denver was able to take the lead leaving the Cowboys with no time.

Does this make logical sense to you? So if Romo had thrown his INT in the 3rd and then scored TD's on every subsequent drive but still came up short, the INT wasn't as bad? Games are 60 minuted, not 2, not 5, not 30, but 60 and it is the entirety that matters. All of it comes together as a whole.

 

[Red Dragon]

I'm trying to understand your point.

If you have the talent, you're going to start. If you don't, you won't. .

That's easy for you to say, typing behind a computer.

If you were an undrafted player, trying to make a name for yourself among hundreds of other football players, knowing that you could be cut at any moment and that you might never get another chance to play in the NFL, you'd pick the opportunity - any opportunity - that gave you more of a chance at job security and career advancement. And for a quarterback, that means signing with a team with mediocre quarterbacking on its roster, rather than signing for a team that has good quarterbacking on the roster.

You're judging based off of hindsight of a QB (Romo) who now has a secure career, rather than some undrafted player really, really, really trying just to find a place in the super-competitive NFL.

 

[KJJ]

Does this make logical sense to you? /quote]

Nope, nothing you've posted makes logical sense.