The fact that Romo never won the big one

[Melonfeud]

I know what the sound of somebody fishing with hand grenades,,,sounds like,Bro!

 

[Bleu Star]

Can you guys do your jobs and put these stupid threads in the drama section or some romosexual section.

What makes this thread drama? Just curious really.

 

[Virginia-Dave]

2006. The team was good enough to go to the Super Bowl.

That was the year Romo took over for Bledsoe. They were barely good enough to get to the playoffs at 9-7, so even without the botched FG hold at the end I don't see them getting past the Bears and Saints. The Saints blew us out 42-17 at home at the end of that season.

The 2007 team was a different story. That was our year. Romo even admitted recently that the 07 team was the best team he ever had. Damn you CABO!!

 

[Big_D]

It was Jerry's fault. Way back in 2007 Phillips and Garrett were a horrible move which started the domino effect. Parcells left a solid team and jerry quickly screwed that up.

 

[CATCH17]

The only time I was really down on Romo was the RG3 on 1 leg game and winner got in the playoffs and he threw the pick in the flats when trying to get Murray the ball.

That should've been it for Garrett as well but here we still are.



Anyways... No.. He's been on offenses that were good enough but his defenses were for the most part terrible.

2014 the run game was so good that it gave us a chance but eventually the defense got exposed.

 

[Everson24]

2006. The team was good enough to go to the Super Bowl.

No, it wasn't. It had glaring weaknesses in speed on defense. We could not cover any running backs out of the backfield at all. Sean Payton exposed their D in December and other teams followed suit.

Our best Romo team with a legit chance to win a Super Bowl was probably the 2009 team. We were playing really well at the end of the season (especially on defense) and may have beaten the Vikings in the playoffs if not for the early injury to Flozell Adams which caused us to have to reshuffle the offensive line in the hostile Metrodome atmosphere and a chance to go the Super Bowl.

 

[Bleu Star]

The only time I was really down on Romo was the RG3 on 1 leg game and winner got in the playoffs and he threw the pick in the flats when trying to get Murray the ball.

That should've been it for Garrett as well but here we still are.

1000 percent agree.

 

[Melonfeud]

Teams win and teams lose together.

So yes. He shoulders some of the blame. No way around it.

Was it mostly his fault? Or even approaching some scintilla of being a significant share of his fault?

No. But it's a team game. He's part of the team. So he shoulders a share of that burden. That's just the way it is.

+3 points are hereby duly awarded fer' the never utilized term of
" SCINTILLA" being overtly,yet all the while on the sly, interjection while conducting forum rapport

 

[lopey]

He never played on a SB winning caliber team. There were always glaring weaknesses even with the handful of really good teams he played on. So no, not his fault.

2014 team had a shot, but a slight one. We will never know thanks to that stupid no catch call!!!!!

 

[sean10mm]

Cabo didn't do $#!+.

People want to make the QB the hero when a team wins and the villain when they lose. Reality is almost never like this. Winning one title requires both a great team and a fair share of blind luck (especially with injuries.) Winning multiple titles requires a great organization top to bottom, from ownership on down.

Stop me when I say anything that sounds like the 2006-2016 Cowboys.

It's not a coincidence that the great quarterbacks have great coaches and vice-versa. Aikman had Jimmy Johnson. Staubach had Landry. Montana and Young had Walsh, Brady had Belichick. This isn't a coincidence.

Try to slot Garrett in there and get back to me.

Do I put Romo on the level of the all-time greats? NO. But I do put him on the level of very good players who could have won a title as part of an organization that wasn't run by frauds at "GM"/HC/OC/DC/etc. for his entire tenure.

When has a team as organizationally fraudulent as the Cowboys won a Super Bowl?

 

[Big_D]

Cabo didn't do $#!+.

People want to make the QB the hero when a team wins and the villain when they lose. Reality is almost never like this. Winning one title requires both a great team and a fair share of blind luck (especially with injuries.) Winning multiple titles requires a great organization top to bottom, from ownership on down.

Stop me when I say anything that sounds like the 2006-2016 Cowboys.

It's not a coincidence that the great quarterbacks have great coaches and vice-versa. Aikman had Jimmy Johnson. Staubach had Landry. Montana and Young had Walsh, Brady had Belichick. This isn't a coincidence.

Try to slot Garrett in there and get back to me.

Do I put Romo on the level of the all-time greats? NO. But I do put him on the level of very good players who could have won a title as part of an organization that wasn't run by frauds at "GM"/HC/OC/DC/etc. for his entire tenure.

When has a team as organizationally fraudulent as the Cowboys won a Super Bowl?

It was a joke. Poor decisions right through the meat of his career. There's just no comparison to the coaching and front office help that the greats have gotten. Brady is a huge proponent of such things and a great example of what a smart franchise actually looks like.

 

[tyke1doe]

Was that Romo's fault? Just curious... & very interested in your perspectives.

He was at fault, but his wasn't the greater fault.
Jerry's was the greater fault. The fault?
Running the offense through Romo.
Bill Parcells had the right idea, but Jerry's meddling (signing T.O. against Bill's wishes) and Bill's age (I think he got tired afterwhile) derailed a trip to a Super Bowl, IMO.
Parcells wanted to use Romo like Simms and Rutledge and Testverde, i.e., as game managers. He wanted to play strong defense and run the ball. That's how he won his Super Bowls and took the NY Jets to the AFC Championship Game.
But that type offense doesn't sell tickets. So Jerry brings T.O. in and coupled with the spectacular - if not errant - play of Romo, Jerry wanted to create a "Romo-friendly" offense.
That meant a heavy reliance on a passing offense, which played to Romo's strengths and his weaknesses.
I've always said that Romo was like Favre. Favre caught lightning in the bottle for one year, and in large part because Jimmy left the Cowboys. Steve Young and Brett Favre would have never won Super Bowls had Jimmy stayed because we had a dynamic team that could pass and run the ball, and Jimmy's strength was defense.
Be that as it may, Favre, for all his spectacular comebacks, was a turnover machine. And that's why the Packers won only one Super Bowl with him as quarterback. He threw so many picks in playoff games (against the Giants in the NFC Championship game, against the Eagles in the 4 and 26 game, against New Orleans when he was with the Vikings) that if he were a lesser quarterback, he would have been cut. But for one season, with a great coach in Holmgren and playing a New England team that wasn't considered a powerhouse, he won a Super Bowl.
Unless you have a transcendent quarterback (see Tom Brady), the way you win Super Bowls is defense and having a balanced attack in the running game and the passing game.
We became a passing team, a Romo-friendly team. And, as a result, in my opinion, we let him run the offense that way, and by so doing, we forfeited any chances for Romo to get a Super Bowl ring.
Coaching also has a part in it, but when your owner hand picks puppet coaches who let him decide the offensive philosophy and let's him pick the groceries, well, you're not going to get a Parcells or someone who knows how to build a team and get to championships.
Romo was his own worst enemy even if he has been our best quarterback this millennium.

 

[Aviano90]

No, it wasn't. It had glaring weaknesses in speed on defense. We could not cover any running backs out of the backfield at all. Sean Payton exposed their D in December and other teams followed suit.

Our best Romo team with a legit chance to win a Super Bowl was probably the 2009 team. We were playing really well at the end of the season (especially on defense) and may have beaten the Vikings in the playoffs if not for the early injury to Flozell Adams which caused us to have to reshuffle the offensive line in the hostile Metrodome atmosphere and a chance to go the Super Bowl.

Sure it was. Teams with weaknesses win the Super Bowl. Nobody thought Philly could win last year when Wentz went down. Most thought they were surely going 1 and done in the playoffs, especially with how bad they looked with Foles at QB when he first took over.

Nobody thought the Giants could win in 2007 or 2011. Their fans were down on Eli and Caughlin in both years, but they made a run.

Nobody thought Baltimore could win in 2012. They fired their offensive coordinator late in the season and needed the Broncos safety to play a deep pass like a little league right fielder inserted in the final inning of a game just to say he played in order to advance against Denver. Then they kept going to a SB title.

We've had teams capable of beating any team in the league. Having a team like that allows you to make a run at a SB, but you need to win the early games in order to do so. We kept on flaming out early.

 

[DCowboyz]

It wasn't his fault. Our teams always had some type of weakness. I do think 2014 was our best when he was here. I still believe we would of reached the SB if that catch was called correctly. Who knows then after?

 

[Melonfeud]

The only time I was really down on Romo was the RG3 on 1 leg game and winner got in the playoffs and he threw the pick in the flats when trying to get Murray the ball.

That should've been it for Garrett as well but here we still are.



Anyways... No.. He's been on offenses that were good enough but his defenses were for the most part terrible.

2014 the run game was so good that it gave us a chance but eventually the defense got exposed.

Negatory! C-17 tramp steamer of the variable air streams,,, as that 2014 run( gifted a bit,albeit in the DETROIT game) was a LEAGUE authorized hose job up in Green Bay,as THEY Dictate outcomes & who advances & if that isn't obvious enough by now, then my goodly esteemed & highly admired forum friend? We are rolling side by side in parallel universes


* crank up that Red Hot Chili Peppers TUNE,,,as this post fades Away,,,

 

[blueblood70]

Most of it was his team as I believe tier 2 QBs many of them like currently Stafford, Rivers,and Cousins and many like them are great QBs not elite I call tier 2 guys and Romo was one of them, they all excel at high level in their positions, stats dont lie but none have everything simply fall into place..many coaches are the same way as other positional players.. QBs are suppoed to carry a team and be responsible for making everyone around them better but that unralsitc and Romo owns acll the Cowboy passing records of the DC and ranks high in ton of categorys in the nfl..he was top 10 most of his career..her was good enough but coaching, defense, and/or players around him found moments to just lose the game..He wasn't perfect but he was great not elite but great..

these guys

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...players-with-the-worst-playoff-resumes#slide6

it happens 4 yrs Romo had the teams that should have went further, it didnt happen..lets move forward but I know this Dak isn't even on pace to be here long enough to break records here..Maybe he gets better, if that happens great..yes true 2016 he was good, also against GB should have been a win , defense blew that season as well..thats not on Dak and im no hypocrite so I had to add that

 

[aikemirv]

Was that Romo's fault? Just curious... & very interested in your perspectives.

I posted this a while back. Between D Brees, A Rodgers, B Favre and S Young they played a total of 52 years and won a super Bowl 4 times - that equates to a 7% chance of winning for 4 of the best QB's to ever play the game. Throw arguably one of the best passers ever into that mix who did not get a Super Bowl (Marino - 17 yrs) and the percentage chance goes down to 5.7% - 1 out of every 20 years!

Peyton Manning - considered by many as the best ever won 1 Sb in 13 years in his prime - 7.6%, and got another one with Denver that had very little to do with him, bringing up the percentage for him to 11.7%

So, what that shows to me is that no matter how good you are as a QB, you do not control getting to and winning the Super Bowl and even if you are great you may only have a 7% chance of winning 1.

Multiple Super Bowl QB winners had arguably some of the best teams/coaches in the history of the game (Brady, Aikman, Montana and Bradshaw for example)

That's my perspective

 

[jsb357]

Beasley was open for the first down on the play.

Romo never even thought about throwing to anyone but Dez.

That's on Romo like it or not.

 

[Chuck 54]

Let’s just say he will never be in the HOF.....no chance. Such is life.

 

[Hennessy_King]

What makes this thread drama? Just curious really.

You're playing stupid.