Stopping the New Romo Myth

[5Stars]

Do you care to share these alarms that you hear the offensive leaders sounding off?

You are supposed to ask him like this...

Do you care

to share

these alarms

that you hear

the offensive leaders

sounding off?

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I disagree. I thought Romo's performance in last season's playoffs was very good. Detroit's defensive line was all over him with 6 sacks, 4 QB hits, and 13 pressures. Still, he managed to convert a key 4th and 6 which helped complete a 4th quarter comeback. His performance against GB was very good too. Romo played well enough to win but the lost fumble essentially lost us the game. Our defense wasn't good enough to slow down a one legged QB.



throw enough mud at the wall, some of it will stick

He held ball too long. That's on him.
He needed to do a little more. He did not.

Yes, defense could not stop one legged man, but that was just one reason why we lost. Offense needed to do better. Romo included.

 

[perrykemp]

I've seen this new Romo myth popping up, and we need to squash this right now.

There is this idea that Romo was able to have a great year because he wasn't the focal point of the offence. First I would say this is ridiculous.

To think that the emphasize on the running attack didn't dramatically help Romo is crazy. His QB rating was nearly 20 points above his career average. That's not statistically insignificant.

Is there any shame at that? Hell no.

Having said that, I'm not will to go so far as to say Romo really should be a career 110 QB rating QB who has simply been held back by the rest of his team.

 

[perrykemp]

He held ball too long. That's on him.
He needed to do a little more. He did not.

Could Romo have done more? Yes, however, I find it hard to quibble with his playoff performance last season.

He held onto the ball more this year than ever before and I think he was better for it. Aaron Rodgers is the poster child (or at least was until GB finally got a OL) for holding onto the ball too long and taking sacks and it hasn't stopped him from winning Superbowl and being considered the best QB in the league.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

The point is not (or at least shouldn't have been) that Romo was not "good". The logical argument was that asking him, or most QBs to sling the ball 50 times a game was not conducive to winning, as the law of averages means that one error could be backbreaking. That alone has developed the perception that he's not clutch.

Aikman was a better QB with a running game. Romo is better with a dependable and efficient running game when he does not have to win the game himself, or better yet, feels he has to, which makes him feel compelled to take the game on his shoulders.

It has never been that he's some horrible QB that cannot win games. Having the support of a balanced offense just helps him mentally handle the game and the pressure better. He is less likely to force throws thinking he has to make the play.

First. Point if thread was about him being focal point.

Second. No one said he is terrible or not very good.

Third. If he had to win all or most of the games of his arm. We won't win Super Bowl. We won't win enough games to get there.



You guys and your revisionist history on Romo.

He is very good to great most of the time. But he has flat out Favre'd us. More times than I would like.

Last year was an anomaly year BECAUSE we ran the ball. Let's not get it confused.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Could Romo have done more? Yes, however, I find it hard to quibble with his playoff performance last season.

He held onto the ball more this year than ever before and I think he was better for it. Aaron Rodgers is the post child (or at least was until GB finally got a OL) for holding onto the ball too long and taking sacks and it hasn't stopped him from winning Superbowl and being consider the best QB in the league.

He can make game winning plays. Some can't. He can.
There is a flip side to that coin that the running game minimizes.

 

[Jerryrage]

Why does Tony Romo need everything to be perfect for him to win.

 

[itsaboat]

I disagree that the fumble lost the GB game, there was still enough time in the game to mount a comeback. The reversed catch plus D's inability to get ball back at games end was another story.

Our defense wasn't good enough, at the time, to stop a one-legged Rodgers.We HAD to WIN the turnover battle. Breaking even wasn't going to be good enough. We lost the fumble and they scored on the ensuing drive. It was only a field goal but it was enough.

He held ball too long. That's on him.
He needed to do a little more. He did not.

Yes, defense could not stop one legged man, but that was just one reason why we lost. Offense needed to do better. Romo included.

Everyone could have played better but you can't let a one-legged QB have time to sit in the pocket and pick you apart in the playoffs. We also needed to win the turnover battle to beat GB. We broke even but that wasn't going to be enough. The defense's lack of a pass rush and Murray's lost fumble contributed more to the loss than Romo's 15 for 19, 191 yards, 2 TD, 0 INTs performance did.

 

[Redball Express]

Do you care to share these alarms that you hear the offensive leaders sounding off?

Brother..

Just go to Dallascowboys.com and listen to Romo and Witten talk.

They clearly say..what they say.

I'm not saying the sky is falling.

Chicken Little I am not.

What I do read between the lines is both of them saying..

We can't sit back and think about last year anymore. It's time to realize we are a different team and we have lost some players and we have new guys whom we don't know how they will fit.

Let's get busy, boss.

That's the WARNING I refer to.

Take it anyway you want.

As a player I take It as a call out from the team higher-up.

As a fan..yawn.

Whatever.

 

[Galian Beast]

First. Point if thread was about him being focal point.

Second. No one said he is terrible or not very good.

Third. If he had to win all or most of the games of his arm. We won't win Super Bowl. We won't win enough games to get there.



You guys and your revisionist history on Romo.

He is very good to great most of the time. But he has flat out Favre'd us. More times than I would like.

Last year was an anomaly year BECAUSE we ran the ball. Let's not get it confused.

Please explain his high QB rating in games lost... Perhaps the highest in nfl history...

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Please explain his high QB rating in games lost... Perhaps the highest in nfl history...

considering he has the 2nd highest of all time, him having a high QB rating in losses doesn't seem out of place

 

[perrykemp]

Please explain his high QB rating in games lost... Perhaps the highest in nfl history...

Its absolutely can't be said his passing performance in the Green Bay contributed to the loss. Having said that, I'd argue the fact that the Cowboys only completed 14 passes all game long as a contributing factor.

 

[Redball Express]

You think this offense is in real trouble?
Seriously?

This offense was one of the better ones in the league before they had anywhere near what they have now.

Romo will be as good or better
Dez will too
Williams should be better in year 3
Beaz is on the uptick too
Smith in his prime
Freddy's arrow is up with only two years under his belt
Martin for sure should be better in year two
Free...probably the same
Witten...probably the same
Leary...maybe the same, maybe slightly better...or else the stud rookie steps in

Randle/McFadden will not be as good as Murray...

So 10 will be as good or better...some maybe much better.
And 1 will probably not be as good.

That equals "real trouble"?!!!!!!

This is not even factoring a defense that almost for sure will be much better.

I just hope the team and staff are not as comfortable as some of the fans.

Yes..I see trouble on the offense for sure.

We lost our best player in Murray. He's been replaced by the 3 stooges plus a 7 year failure in McFadden.

Our Leader Dez is not practicing and getting ready too bust our cap with his demands..

Romo is one sack from retirement with his back problems (remember Irvin and his back injury and Haley and Novachek?)..

and we have Weedley for a backup. Weeden..whomever.

Defenses are going to blitz Romo unmercifully becuz Murray isn't there to pickup blitzes.

And no RB we have is going to scare anybody in our own division much less around the NFL.

But whatever you think.

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

Oh you think Murray was their best player? Where's your sign?

 

[Galian Beast]

Romo has an 84.5 qb rating in games lost.

Even comparing his production in games lost to players over their career's tha would put Romo 29th in NFL history....

You name any active quarterback you think is better than romo, and I'll show you that Romo has a higher quarterback rating when he wins than them and a higher qb rating when he loses. The only exception to the higher w qb rating would be aaron rodgers.

 

[Hoofbite]

Not sure why it even matters if it is a myth or not. Does it make a difference whether or not a strong running game helps a QB?

Ask any QB if they would like a top 3 rushing game, and the vast majority will gladly accept.

Also, not sure I see the point in comparing him to Rodgers. Rodgers has more attempts with the lead......so what? Maybe the respective productivity of each QB is significantly influential in how many passes they've attempted with the lead.

 

[Galian Beast]

considering he has the 2nd highest of all time, him having a high QB rating in losses doesn't seem out of place

And that is exactly the point. No team asks a quarterback to do so much in order to win games. Anything short of amazing, and this team loses. That tells you everything. I don't think I've ever seen a qb lose so many games with a 100+ qb rating...

The most exciting thing about next year is the defense. I believe it will be the best defense romo has ever had. Not that that is saying a lot.

 

[blindzebra]

I swear we have some of the dumbest fans of any team out there.

I can't recall anyone calling Murray an elite back this time last year, yet here we sit with some thinking he is Jim Brown, Walter Payton, and Emmitt Smith rolled into one.

Romo has played at an elite level for much of his career and some are too stupid to realize it.

 

[Galian Beast]

Its absolutely can't be said his passing performance in the Green Bay contributed to the loss. Having said that, I'd argue the fact that the Cowboys only completed 14 passes all game long as a contributing factor.

Romo only threw the ball 19 times. I think you can blame Garrett on being so conservative against a team that wasn't great against the pass. This again goes to the point that this still needs to be a pass first offense. That establishes the run though the pass. We can still rely heavily on the run, but we need to put opposing teams on edge. Rodgers never felt pressure in that game either from the pass rush or from the score board. That is how you force mistakes.

 

[Rockport]

I've seen this new Romo myth popping up, and we need to squash this right now.

There is this idea that Romo was able to have a great year because he wasn't the focal point of the offence. First I would say this is ridiculous. When Romo had bad games or wasn't healthy this team still lost even with the running game, and when Romo wasn't there at all this team lost.

I've always thought Romo was an elite quarterback, and that we would see that if he had the following things

- an offensive line that could protect him
- a running game
- and a defense.

Basically if he was on a good team, you would see how elite he was as this is what elite quarterbacks have. I think Romo was elite last year. I know he lead the league in QB Rating, and I think he lead in QBR as well, not positive on the latter though.

But it wasn't about DeMarco Murray directly. It was about the time of possession battle that helped this defense stay on the right side of the ledger.

Who are the two standard bearers at the QB position? Rodgers and Brady.

Aaron Rodgers became a starter in 2008, a year and a half after Romo became a starter. Romo missed some time due to injury, but so did Rodgers, yet Rodgers has 1600 attempts with a lead compared to Romo who only has 1325 attempts. Romo actually has a higher qb rating than Brady when they play with a lead.
Hell, he has a higher quarterback rating than Brady when they both are trailing. The problem with Romo is that he has 1913 attempts when trailing compared to 1325 attempts with the lead. That inbalance is hugely detrimental to Romo, and causes him to be far more aggressive.

2.84 td to interception rating with the lead
2.08 td to interception rating when trailing

The reason Romo was so good last year is that he at least hit 50/50 last year between trailing and leading.

Did the running game help this defense last year and as a result help Romo? Absolutely. Can an improved defense allow Romo to pass more in a game, without taking unnecessary risks? Again, absolutely. The key end game is to have the lead while conducting offense and not be FORCED to pass the ball. As long as we are passing the ball on our terms, we will see efficient high quality play out of Romo regardless to an extent of how much we actually run the ball.


A lot of people look at pass attempts in a game, ignoring the fact that if Romo has to throw the ball 40 times, it's probably a bad situation in the first place.

This team should create an identity of not necessarily a rushing offense, but an imposing one. One that sets the pace of the game not just in terms of time of possession, but in terms of points scored. And you score points by passing the ball. It's time to impose this offense on other defenses with Bryant, Witten, Williams, Beasley, Escobar e.t.c. I hope the offensive line can get to the point where they don't need to keep tight ends in for help.

You score points with this offense early and often, and you let what looks like it could be a great defense pin its ears back. I see no reason this team can't be better than the 2009 Saints. Hell, I think we were better than them in 2009...

Great post.