Stop looking at Romo's age

[gimmesix]

They do it with Spencer, Ware, Witten and Ratliff as well. Spencer JUST turned 29, he's not in his mid 30's. Ware is 30 and Witten is 30. Ratliff is 31. They aren't old for the NFL.

The wear and tear is there, though. That's why we see more injuries cropping up.

Players like Ratliff can only be beaten on so long before tendons/muscles/bones surrender to the wear and tear. It doesn't mean he's finished yet or can't have an injury-free season, but it does mean his body is giving out and he doesn't have long left in this league.

 

[Lonestar94]

It doesnt matter how many starts he has, at a certain age the body just starts breaking down.

 

[igtmfo]

Parcells freaking LOVED Romo.
He is a very big reason they kept him around long enough for him to get his shot.
It would have helped Romo's career maybe if Dallas had both Payton and Parcells around longer, but you're way off on how both felt about him.
Where do you people come from?

Plus, that 4th quarter comment is plain dumb seeing that he was at or near the top in come from behind 4th quarter wins last year...and in his career for that matter. Totally narrow-minded commetn.

Oh yes Parcells LOVED ROMO:

2003: Never got in a game.
2004: Never got in a game.
2005: Never got in a game.
2006: Good job. With the unfortunate outcome in Seattle.
---
Parcells leaves ....
2007-8. OK, but bad endings.
2009. Beat the Eagles when they were pretty beaten down themselves. Vikings, ladies hide your eyes.
2010. yawn
2011. yawn
2012. yawn.

Hell yeah! Tony Romo !!!~!!!!!!!!!

The poster talks about come-from-behinds.

Last year we won a few. But finished 1-7 against teams with a winning record that is. In 2011, it was about the same at come from behinds (l worked this all out a year ago, going into the 4th quarter in 2011, very few come-from behinds, I have to look it up ...). I posted this 2011 thing here way back ..

In NFL pro/am golf tournaments, Tony is always in the action on Sunday but fades. He's never won one (I don't think). Nor will the Cowboys with TR as QB.

 

[goshan]

Sorry, but you are wrong.
The biggest thing that drives erosion of skills is age, period.
Age matters.

In general erosion of physical ability starts in the low 30s.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Once again people on this board come to a conclusion that all things are equal in football. because player A did this then player B can also.

People are different. And when a body begins to slow, even gradually is unique to each person.

The number of games Romo played when he was 22, or lack thereof, has no bearing on Father Time. This example with listed players ignores something as obvious as why don't all quarterbacks have the same skill set?

Because they are different. Their bodies are different.

I have no clue how old Romo will be when he has to hang them up.

But once again it appears people find anything to make excuses for the player and justify what happens in his life.

He's a good football player. But what I would be more concerned with is not his body, per se, but his line that allows him to take such huge hits.

One Theisman type injury and all the sitting and watching in his early twenties goes by the wayside.

 

[5Stars]

Wear and tear is as big a part of the game as the aging process. Running back don't usually leave the game after four years because they've gotten too old, but because their bodies start breaking down from all the hits.

Quarterbacks take less punishment, but they take punishment none the less. All those hits to their heads, legs, arms, etc., start to take a toll. Aikman, for example, didn't leave the game because his arm wore out, but simply because he'd taken too many hits, especially to the head.

Romo doesn't have the advantage of being in his 20s, but he does have the advantage of not taking that punishment week after week for his first three or four years in the league.

 

[Doomsay]

Once again people on this board come to a conclusion that all things are equal in football. because player A did this then player B can also.

People are different. And when a body begins to slow, even gradually is unique to each person.

The number of games Romo played when he was 22, or lack thereof, has no bearing on Father Time. This example with listed players ignores something as obvious as why don't all quarterbacks have the same skill set?

Because they are different. Their bodies are different.

I have no clue how old Romo will be when he has to hang them up.

But once again it appears people find anything to make excuses for the player and justify what happens in his life.

He's a good football player. But what I would be more concerned with is not his body, per se, but his line that allows him to take such huge hits.

One Theisman type injury and all the sitting and watching in his early twenties goes by the wayside.

I suspect that there are more examples of QB's aging out than otherwise, the list provided was essentially an outlier subset of the best long-lifed QB's in history. We bet the house on Tony because he's technically good enough, we needed short-term cap relief and ultimately, because we had no other choice.

 

[gimmesix]

Sorry, but you are wrong.
The biggest thing that drives erosion of skills is age, period.
Age matters.

In general erosion of physical ability starts in the low 30s.

So running backs have an average NFL lifespan of four years because they grow old faster?

I never said age has no effect, but it's a bigger factor when coupled with wear and tear as far as football is concerned. Romo is on the wrong side of 30, but is on the right side of wear and tear for a starting quarterback.

 

[gimmesix]

I suspect that there are more examples of QB's aging out than otherwise, the list provided was essentially an outlier subset of the best long-lifed QB's in history. We bet the house on Tony because he's technically good enough, we needed short-term cap relief and ultimately, because we had no other choice.

The list provided was randomly picking QBs and looking at the length of their careers. Feel free to pick other franchise QBs and compare their number of starting years and when they won Super Bowls to Romo's.

 

[gimmesix]

Once again people on this board come to a conclusion that all things are equal in football. because player A did this then player B can also.

People are different. And when a body begins to slow, even gradually is unique to each person.

I don't deny that, but wear and tear has always been a factor for football players. The more your body is hit over that period of time, the more it is going to break down.

Obviously, with any player, a career-ending injury can happen at anytime, whether you're a 12-year vet or a rookie, but normal wear and tear take their toll the more you are out there subjecting your body to punishment.

 

[Nightman]

The wear and tear is there, though. That's why we see more injuries cropping up.

Players like Ratliff can only be beaten on so long before tendons/muscles/bones surrender to the wear and tear. It doesn't mean he's finished yet or can't have an injury-free season, but it does mean his body is giving out and he doesn't have long left in this league.

The point is that people exaggerate the truth to fit their agenda. It happens here way too often. If Spencer signs a 5yr deal, it will be essentially a 3yr deal that covers 29, 30 and 31, but everyone says we can't keep paying these guys into their mid 30s.

 

[Califan007]

Either you missed the point or are just committed to ignoring it.

Brees won a Super Bowl in his eighth season as starter. Manning won his in his ninth. Montana added his last two in his ninth and 10th. And the list goes on.

There's a difference between being a 32-year-old quarterback who has started 10 seasons and one who's started 6 1/2.

Hmm...are you by chance Brandon Weeden's agent?

 

[TwoDeep3]

I don't deny that, but wear and tear has always been a factor for football players. The more your body is hit over that period of time, the more it is going to break down.

Obviously, with any player, a career-ending injury can happen at anytime, whether you're a 12-year vet or a rookie, but normal wear and tear take their toll the more you are out there subjecting your body to punishment.

But normal wear and tear, is subjective to each player.

That is the point.

Just as a side note, I now laugh at your signature considering the cap Hell this team is in and will be for years.

No reflection on you, but evidently arrogance in the Jones' family doesn't fall far from the tree.

 

[TwoDeep3]

1 Bart Starr- 33
2 Bart Starr- 34
3 Joe Namath- 25
4. Len Dawson- 34
5. John Unitas- 37
6. Roger Staubach- 29
7. Bob Griese- 27
8. Bob Griese- 28
9. Terry Bradshaw- 26
10. Terry Bradshaw- 27
11. Ken Stabler- 31
12. Roger Staubach - 35
13. Terry Bradshaw- 30
14. Terry Bradshaw- 31
15. Jim Plunkett-33
16. Joe Montana- 25
17. Joe Theismann - 33
18. Jim Plunkett- 36
19. Joe Montana- 28
20. Jim McMahon- 26
21. Phil Simms- 32
22. Doug Williams - 32
23. Joe Montana- 32
24. Joe Montana- 33
25. Jeff Hostetler- 29
26. Mark Rypien- 30
27. Troy Aikman- 26
28. Troy Aikman- 27
29. Steve Young- 33
30. Troy Aikman- 29
31. Brett Favre- 27
32. John Elway- 37
33. John Elway-38
34. Kurt Warner- 28
35. Trent Dilfer- 28
36. Tom Brady- 24
37. Brad Johnson- 34
38. Tom Brady-26
39. Tom Brady-27
40. Ben Roethlisberger-23
41. Peyton Manning-30
42. Eli Manning- 27
43. Ben Roethlisberger - 26
44. Drew Brees - 31
45. Aaron Rogers - 27
46. - Eli Manning - 31
47. Joe Flacco - 28

So. twenty-one of the forty-seven quarterbacks that won the Super Bowl were over thirty-years old.

But there could be an argument made for the twenty-six that were under thirty that they too could have won after thirty if they had the team to do so.

Or conversely, all the over thirty winners could have been losers if the team they led wasn't as good.

I think the point is age wasn't that much of a factor as the team itself. But this in no way suggests anything about normal wear and tear since each man on this list has a different body and their body reacts in a different way to the others.

 

[gimmesix]

But normal wear and tear, is subjective to each player.

That is the point.

No, wear and tear is wear and tear. If you are out there getting hit, it's going to have a greater effect on your body than if you are not out there getting hit.

I think I know what you mean, though. People recover from injuries at different rates and so on.

That's true, but if you have no bumps and bruises to recover from from week to week it's better on your body long term than if you are fast healer.

I agree that for all we know Romo's body might break down faster than quarterbacks who have lasted 11, 12, 14 years in the league (that's always a risk), but the point I am making is that he has less wear and tear of years of playing than most quarterbacks his age and that's a factor in the NFL aging process.

Throwing the age 32 out there like it's some magical number for breaking down is simply not looking at all the factors. (Not saying you did that, simply that it is being done.)

 

[TwoDeep3]

No, wear and tear is wear and tear. If you are out there getting hit, it's going to have a greater effect on your body than if you are not out there getting hit.

I think I know what you mean, though. People recover from injuries at different rates and so on.

That's true, but if you have no bumps and bruises to recover from from week to week it's better on your body long term than if you are fast healer.

I agree that for all we know Romo's body might break down faster than quarterbacks who have lasted 11, 12, 14 years in the league (that's always a risk), but the point I am making is that he has less wear and tear of years of playing than most quarterbacks his age and that's a factor in the NFL aging process.

Throwing the age 32 out there like it's some magical number for breaking down is simply not looking at all the factors. (Not saying you did that, simply that it is being done.)

Conversely, 32 for one guy may be 37 for another, body-wise.

Now these are numbers representing an abstract theory on breakdown of skills due to age. I know you understand that.

But along with this is the idea that wear and tear also have different effects on different people.

I don't believe it is a given, although odds would suggest so, that Romo will play to an older age because he didn't play when he was in his early twenties.

I think there is some assumption here that he will be able to continue playing at his current level into his late thirties.

There is a lot of speculation in that assumption by some is all I'm saying.

 

[Doomsay]

The list provided was randomly picking QBs and looking at the length of their careers. Feel free to pick other franchise QBs and compare their number of starting years and when they won Super Bowls to Romo's.

Pretty good "random" selection. These guys averaged over 6 playoff wins and almost 1 and a half Superbowl victories a piece by the end of their 7th year starting. They were mostly already fairly successful at Tony's stage in their starting careers, and even more successful by his age. The fact that they had further success after their 7th year is less meaningful given that they had already been successful.

On an age basis, only Elway seemed to have more success after his 33rd year. Joe Theismann and Steve Young are really good examples of guys who peaked late, both in terms of age and playing experience (Young of course, benefited by switching to the 2nd best team of the 90's).

 

[gimmesix]

I don't believe it is a given, although odds would suggest so, that Romo will play to an older age because he didn't play when he was in his early twenties.

I think there is some assumption here that he will be able to continue playing at his current level into his late thirties.

There is a lot of speculation in that assumption by some is all I'm saying.

I don't believe it's a given, either. All I am asserting is that there is a difference in the physical wear and tear with him at 32 having started 6 1/2 seasons and with him at 32 having started 10 or 11 seasons. The hits add up.

People are using his age as a factor without considering all the factors. Neither really means much because we don't know a) if he'll suffer a career-ending injury in a high collision sport or b) exactly what age or degree of wear and tear will be his limit (both factor into the length of his career if he doesn't suffer major injuries).

To me, it is ridiculous to say because he'll be 33 this season that he won't be able to play out his contract at a high level when he hasn't had the typical wear and tear of a starting QB his age and we don't know his threshold. It would be equally ridiculous for someone to say absolutely that he will. I am not asserting that. I'm asserting simply that his wear and tear from starting is not typical for a franchise quarterback his age, so we shouldn't treat it like it is and just say, "Oh, he's 32, that's too old to give that kind of contract."

 

[gimmesix]

Pretty good "random" selection. These guys averaged over 6 playoff wins and almost 1 and a half Superbowl victories a piece by the end of their 7th year starting. They were mostly already fairly successful at Tony's stage in their starting careers, and even more successful by his age. The fact that they had further success after their 7th year is less meaningful given that they had already been successful.

On an age basis, only Elway seemed to have more success after his 33rd year. Joe Theismann and Steve Young are really good examples of guys who peaked late, both in terms of age and playing experience (Young of course, benefited by switching to the 2nd best team of the 90's).

Well, I was going by franchise QBs and the ones that popped into my head. If you want to throw any of the guys from TwoDeep's list above into the fray, feel free.

All it shows IMO is that quite a few franchise QBs had success after the same point in their careers as starters and went on to careers as starters almost twice as long as Romo's has been. It doesn't mean Romo will, because like you said those quarterbacks had previous success as well. It simply shows it has and can be done.

If we're going to use his age as a gauge of success (saying this number of quarterbacks won a Super Bowl after age 32), then we need to use his years as a starter as one as well. In fact, I think it's a better barometer because most quarterbacks develop over the length of their careers, gaining a better understanding of how to play their position before decline comes because of injury or wear and tear. Some quarterbacks hit that peak before others, though, especially if they have a good team built around them.

 

[Bowdown27]

I've stated this before in multiple threads. Tony age doesn't bother me at all because he came in as a starter around 26 years old. He started late so technically he's in his prime years. He just needs a ton of help. He has never had a consistent running game. Get him that and let's see what we can do